4 ms·

I did read it. My point is, you contributed nothing. And you are still contributing nothing. And I shouldn't have to point this out. You should be self consciou

I did read it. My point is, you contributed nothing. And you are still contributing nothing. And I shouldn't have to point this out. You should be self conscious enough to know that your comment contained nothing.

EpicEng 13y ago
Seems like your ok with "contributing nothing" yourself though eh? I can keep this up all day. I suppose I am also confused as to what your definition of meaningful content is. Is this meaningful? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6865612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6865612 How about this? I guess comments meant purely to attack another member is meaningful content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842750 Seems like you have a double standard here. You've posted more than one comment which adds nothing to the value (per your secret definition) of a given thread. You should at least be consistent if you're going to call other people out.
- Double_Cast 13y ago
  > Seems like you have a double standard here. (...) You should at least be consistent if you're going to call other people out. Ad hominem tu quoque [1]. Suppose I'm 70 years old with emphysema due to smoking cigarettes decades ago. If I advise you "smoking is harmful, don't do it", does my hypocrisy invalidate the assertion that smoking is harmful? Would the fact that I, as an addict, still smoke a pack a day magically make smoking any less harmful? > Welcome to the internet, lighten up. I have to agree with TheZenPsycho. Yes, this is the internet. But no, this is not /b. This is a domain of the internet called Hacker News, which (at least in theory [2]) has certain standards. pg has even expressed worry about the dilution of HN [3]. > I can keep this up all day. I find your antagonism especially disappointing. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque [2] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [3] http://paulgraham.com/hackernews.html http://paulgraham.com/hackernews.html
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    Ad hominem tu quoque [1]. Suppose I'm 70 years old with emphysema due to smoking cigarettes decades ago. If I advise you "smoking is harmful, don't do it", does my hypocrisy invalidate the assertion that smoking is harmful? Thanks, but trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart and I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct. The point is that the parent seemed oh so saddened by the lack of constructive discourse here, yet he has at least two similar comments. So yes, ad hominem, that was the point.
    - Double_Cast 13y ago
      > I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct Then you already know that TheZenPsycho's hypocrisy was irrelevant? Not merely "not mutually exclusive with being correct", but basically a non-sequiter. So tell me, why bother bringing it up? At this point, I really am curious what you were thinking. > trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart But fallacies are useful for stating my position succinctly and accurately. If you're familiar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me is negligible. If you're unfamiliar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me (upon reading wikipedia and my example) is at least reduced. The alternative is to concoct an explanation which leads us to speak past each other. I give you Example A: > The point is that the parent seemed oh so saddened by the lack of constructive discourse here, yet he has at least two similar comments. No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me." I agree, fallacies don't make me look any smarter. But I imagine they avoid making me look as dumb as someone who can't defend their own position properly. Furthermore, my comment was a Refutation of the Central Point. As a fellow HN user, surely you recognize this from How to Disagree [1]. Your point was predicated solely upon double standards (and vitriol?). And then I stated not only that double standards are noise, but also why I actually disagree with you by referencing HN's guidelines. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
      - EpicEng 13y ago
        No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me." No, that's not my point. My point is dealing with humorless gits like you and Zen is just wearisome. I should be "ashamed" fro replying to a comment to say that I like a TV show? Yeesh, get over yourselves. Seriously, it's just exhausting talking to people like you. I'm sure both of you are a blast to be around in real life (that was sarcasm in case it was lost on you).

EpicEng 13y ago

Seems like your ok with "contributing nothing" yourself though eh? I can keep this up all day. I suppose I am also confused as to what your definition of meaningful content is. Is this meaningful? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6865612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6865612 How about this? I guess comments meant purely to attack another member is meaningful content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842750 Seems like you have a double standard here. You've posted more than one comment which adds nothing to the value (per your secret definition) of a given thread. You should at least be consistent if you're going to call other people out.

Double_Cast 13y ago
> Seems like you have a double standard here. (...) You should at least be consistent if you're going to call other people out. Ad hominem tu quoque [1]. Suppose I'm 70 years old with emphysema due to smoking cigarettes decades ago. If I advise you "smoking is harmful, don't do it", does my hypocrisy invalidate the assertion that smoking is harmful? Would the fact that I, as an addict, still smoke a pack a day magically make smoking any less harmful? > Welcome to the internet, lighten up. I have to agree with TheZenPsycho. Yes, this is the internet. But no, this is not /b. This is a domain of the internet called Hacker News, which (at least in theory [2]) has certain standards. pg has even expressed worry about the dilution of HN [3]. > I can keep this up all day. I find your antagonism especially disappointing. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque [2] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [3] http://paulgraham.com/hackernews.html http://paulgraham.com/hackernews.html
- EpicEng 13y ago
  Ad hominem tu quoque [1]. Suppose I'm 70 years old with emphysema due to smoking cigarettes decades ago. If I advise you "smoking is harmful, don't do it", does my hypocrisy invalidate the assertion that smoking is harmful? Thanks, but trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart and I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct. The point is that the parent seemed oh so saddened by the lack of constructive discourse here, yet he has at least two similar comments. So yes, ad hominem, that was the point.
  - Double_Cast 13y ago
    > I already know that hypocrisy is not mutually exclusive with being correct Then you already know that TheZenPsycho's hypocrisy was irrelevant? Not merely "not mutually exclusive with being correct", but basically a non-sequiter. So tell me, why bother bringing it up? At this point, I really am curious what you were thinking. > trotting out logical fallacies doesn't make you look smart But fallacies are useful for stating my position succinctly and accurately. If you're familiar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me is negligible. If you're unfamiliar, then the chance you'll misunderstand me (upon reading wikipedia and my example) is at least reduced. The alternative is to concoct an explanation which leads us to speak past each other. I give you Example A: > The point is that the parent seemed oh so saddened by the lack of constructive discourse here, yet he has at least two similar comments. No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me." I agree, fallacies don't make me look any smarter. But I imagine they avoid making me look as dumb as someone who can't defend their own position properly. Furthermore, my comment was a Refutation of the Central Point. As a fellow HN user, surely you recognize this from How to Disagree [1]. Your point was predicated solely upon double standards (and vitriol?). And then I stated not only that double standards are noise, but also why I actually disagree with you by referencing HN's guidelines. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
    - EpicEng 13y ago
      No, that's not your point. That's one of your supporting arguments. Your actual point is "Therefore, TheZenPsycho should not have criticized me." No, that's not my point. My point is dealing with humorless gits like you and Zen is just wearisome. I should be "ashamed" fro replying to a comment to say that I like a TV show? Yeesh, get over yourselves. Seriously, it's just exhausting talking to people like you. I'm sure both of you are a blast to be around in real life (that was sarcasm in case it was lost on you).