3 ms·

>>If what someone says is wrong, refute it. If you're right, you should be able to demonstrate it civilly. That's what I'm saying: it's not about being right o

>>If what someone says is wrong, refute it. If you're right, you should be able to demonstrate it civilly. That's what I'm saying: it's not about being right or wrong. Engi_nerd has responded to every criticism thrown at the F-35 by using shoddy reasoning and hand-waving, such as "The F-35 is a complex answer to a complex question, and it cannot be so simply understood." I mean, seriously? That sounds like something a politician would say. Or a company spokesperson. So of course everyone got the impression that he has an ulterior motive. Anyway, I'm going to stop here, but I want to say that I'm disappointed in the way you handled this. I hope you understand. Have a nice day.

dang 11y ago
There might be a misunderstanding here. I'm not endorsing engi_nerd's arguments. I haven't properly read them. They may be just as you say. But even if they're that and worse, you can't commit the foul of accusing someone without evidence. This is a narrow, procedural point. It has nothing to do with anyone's shoddy arguments, let alone anyone's trillion-dollar fighter plane, but only with the HN community, which we all have to take care of. Making wrong and evasive arguments is bad, but destroying civil discourse (which such accusations do) is, to use a good military-industrial phrase, an existential threat. That's why we intervene when we see it.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  If my arguments are bad, then people here are free to offer counter arguments. If I am unclear, ask me for clarification, and I'll try to clarify. If I am making an evasive argument, call me on it, and I'll either attempt to refine it to be more substantial or, if I cannot, then I will admit my error and move on. I think that kind of discussion is what you are trying to preserve here on HN, and I'm all for it. I really do love this site.
engi_nerd 11y ago
...It's the answer of a guy who is familiar with the hairy reality of engineering systems because he has years of engineering experience and wrestles with those systems every day. A few days ago someone was talking about John Gall and his classic work, "Systemantics". The principles described there closely relate to what I'm talking about. 1) Everything is a system. 2) Everything is part of a larger system (ex. the military industrial complex) 3) All systems are infinitely complex. The F-35 is an infinitely complex system of systems operating in a system of systems (the MIC) that, to pull an analogy from Cantor, is a higher order of infinite complexity. I didn't elaborate enough on that original point for you. You could have asked me for clarification and I would have been happy to try, as I have done here (look at my interactions with nickpsecurity -- I don't think I'm such a bad guy as you are portraying).

dang 11y ago

There might be a misunderstanding here. I'm not endorsing engi_nerd's arguments. I haven't properly read them. They may be just as you say. But even if they're that and worse, you can't commit the foul of accusing someone without evidence. This is a narrow, procedural point. It has nothing to do with anyone's shoddy arguments, let alone anyone's trillion-dollar fighter plane, but only with the HN community, which we all have to take care of. Making wrong and evasive arguments is bad, but destroying civil discourse (which such accusations do) is, to use a good military-industrial phrase, an existential threat. That's why we intervene when we see it.

engi_nerd 11y ago
If my arguments are bad, then people here are free to offer counter arguments. If I am unclear, ask me for clarification, and I'll try to clarify. If I am making an evasive argument, call me on it, and I'll either attempt to refine it to be more substantial or, if I cannot, then I will admit my error and move on. I think that kind of discussion is what you are trying to preserve here on HN, and I'm all for it. I really do love this site.

engi_nerd 11y ago

...It's the answer of a guy who is familiar with the hairy reality of engineering systems because he has years of engineering experience and wrestles with those systems every day. A few days ago someone was talking about John Gall and his classic work, "Systemantics". The principles described there closely relate to what I'm talking about. 1) Everything is a system. 2) Everything is part of a larger system (ex. the military industrial complex) 3) All systems are infinitely complex. The F-35 is an infinitely complex system of systems operating in a system of systems (the MIC) that, to pull an analogy from Cantor, is a higher order of infinite complexity. I didn't elaborate enough on that original point for you. You could have asked me for clarification and I would have been happy to try, as I have done here (look at my interactions with nickpsecurity -- I don't think I'm such a bad guy as you are portraying).