Hacker News Reader

Comment by vasilipupkin | Hacker News Reader

I am not painting anyone as anything. It is mathematically and logically correct to assume that there is substantial likelihood that when you hear someone say something idiotic, then that person saying that idiotic thing is in fact an idiot. If I hear additional information, I am happy to revise my opinion if necessary. But innocent until proven guilty is not necessary, this is not a criminal court

View on HN

>mathematically and logically correct

There is nothing mathematical or logical about value judgements. Those are two fields that pride themselves in that. You are deciding that the opinion is idiotic because it's not your own opinion.

>If I hear additional information, I am happy to revise my opinion if necessary.

But for the time being you're willing to paint someone as an idiot without knowing why they've developed certain opinions. It's a classic case of the fundamental attribution error.

You don't need to know why someone thinks that 2 times 2 is 6 to assume that person is at least somewhat an idiot. Women's right to vote is pretty much equivalent to that. Also notice my phrasing: substantial likelihood

Women's suffrage (and suffrage in general) may be a good idea. When you say that the case for it being a good idea is as strong as that for a mathematical proof, you're discrediting yourself, since you're smart enough to know that political ideas can never achieve the rigor of proof.

you are clearly missing the point of this conversation. The point of this conversation is not to claim that 2 times 2 is equal to women's suffrage, but to simply state the obvious: when somebody says something that sounds pretty obviously idiotic, the likelihood that this person actually is an idiot goes up dramatically.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com