3 ms·

I think his point is "you quoted a nazi. Nazis did bad things. Thus you agree with things they did. Thus you are a bad person, and your point is invalid, whatev

I think his point is "you quoted a nazi. Nazis did bad things. Thus you agree with things they did. Thus you are a bad person, and your point is invalid, whatever it may be."

jt2190 13y ago
No, I'm suggesting that the point could have been made without quoting Nazi doctrine. The concept that we should shoot those who hold ideas we don't agree with rather than engage in debate is exactly how we end up with horrible totalitarian regimes.
- 001sky 13y ago
  The concept that we should shoot those who hold ideas we don't agree with rather than engage in debate And your form of argument is ad-hominem. Not exactly the moral high ground.
  - jt2190 13y ago
    My point is that he weakens his (valid) argument by quoting a nazi, and I'm suggesting he edit. You're actually accusing me of making an ad hominem attack, when in fact I'm simply trying to point out that he's opening himself up to such attacks by using the quote he's using. Clearly you must agree that he's inviting such attacks, as you seem to be jumping to his defense even before such an attack has taken place.
    - YuriNiyazov 13y ago
      And you seem to be saying that it is the job of a person making an argument to ensure that ad hominem attacks against him aren't made, though an ad-hominem attack is a thought process failure on the part of the attacker, not the one being attacked.
      - jt2190 13y ago
        It's always the job of the writer to make himself understood. If the writer chooses to use words that alienate his readers, such that they refuse to listen to any of his ideas, it's his failure, not theirs. This world is not populated with vulcans ("thought process failure"?) and logic alone will not carry the day. That said, you have every right to write what you want to. Best of luck.
        001sky 13y ago
        If the writer chooses to use words that alienate his readers You (seemingly) are an example of everything you argue against, tho. Shoot the messenger is not a strong or attractive argument. Neither is failing to (properly) understand a literary reference, have a sense of irony, history, humor, etc... Lighten up and argue your point, properly. With trasnparency, not FUD and oblique credibility attacks. This is also a good time to think about whether you are a cultural fit with HN.[1] __________ [1] <sarcasm tag> Be Glad I'm not your boss. Oh, wait, that would be an asshole comment. OK folks. Carry on. NOthing to see here.

I think his point is "you quoted a nazi. Nazis did bad things. Thus you agree with things they did. Thus you are a bad person, and your point is invalid, whatever it may be."

jt2190 13y ago

No, I'm suggesting that the point could have been made without quoting Nazi doctrine. The concept that we should shoot those who hold ideas we don't agree with rather than engage in debate is exactly how we end up with horrible totalitarian regimes.

001sky 13y ago
The concept that we should shoot those who hold ideas we don't agree with rather than engage in debate And your form of argument is ad-hominem. Not exactly the moral high ground.
- jt2190 13y ago
  My point is that he weakens his (valid) argument by quoting a nazi, and I'm suggesting he edit. You're actually accusing me of making an ad hominem attack, when in fact I'm simply trying to point out that he's opening himself up to such attacks by using the quote he's using. Clearly you must agree that he's inviting such attacks, as you seem to be jumping to his defense even before such an attack has taken place.
  - YuriNiyazov 13y ago
    And you seem to be saying that it is the job of a person making an argument to ensure that ad hominem attacks against him aren't made, though an ad-hominem attack is a thought process failure on the part of the attacker, not the one being attacked.
    - jt2190 13y ago
      It's always the job of the writer to make himself understood. If the writer chooses to use words that alienate his readers, such that they refuse to listen to any of his ideas, it's his failure, not theirs. This world is not populated with vulcans ("thought process failure"?) and logic alone will not carry the day. That said, you have every right to write what you want to. Best of luck.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        If the writer chooses to use words that alienate his readers You (seemingly) are an example of everything you argue against, tho. Shoot the messenger is not a strong or attractive argument. Neither is failing to (properly) understand a literary reference, have a sense of irony, history, humor, etc... Lighten up and argue your point, properly. With trasnparency, not FUD and oblique credibility attacks. This is also a good time to think about whether you are a cultural fit with HN.[1] __________ [1] <sarcasm tag> Be Glad I'm not your boss. Oh, wait, that would be an asshole comment. OK folks. Carry on. NOthing to see here.