Hacker News Reader

Comment by nh23423fefe | Hacker News Reader

author thinks the election was stolen

https://stanfordreview.org/stanford-future-gop/

> Then the president began a legal fight for the election. Countless numbers of his supporters have rallied around him, with 70% of Republicans suspecting fraud. But many who claimed to support the President were more than happy to roll over and hand the presidency to Biden without a fight. Since election night, many prominent Republicans have hesitated to support the president. Senator Mitt Romney and former President George W. Bush have even called on Trump to concede the election. Many more, in their silence, have failed to give the President their support in his hour of greatest need.

View on HN

What has that got to do with this thread?

It brings into question the author's credibility.

At this juncture, claims of 2020 election theft are akin to being a Flat Earther. Do you, dear reader, desire to get advice, a hot take on sugar babies, or have anything to do with such a person?

It's at least nice to be aware and have the information.

They would at worse be arguing in bad faith. But their argument is right or wrong because of its bases and assumptions, not based on who's saying the words

Their argument is based on opinions of morality and soft-truths, but they're casting it like an objective problem (which it is not). The author even feels the need to admit as much at the end, simply acknowledging that the cycle of sexualization will always continue, regardless of our opinion on it.

So, with that being said, I'd say it absolutely compromises their argument here. If the author is gullible enough to fall for garden-variety conspiracy theories, why should I trust their authority on morality? Their rhetorical triangle is broken. They have no credibility, they make no appeals to logic (and contradict themselves) which leaves them only with pathos - the ability to outrage and incense their audience based on emotional appeals.

Sure, you can pretend to have a uniform prior.

Its absurd to take someone's opinion on an a completely unrelated issue and then apply it as a blanket denunciation of all their opinions or speech. Having an unorthodox opinion, even being a flat earther, says next to nothing about your expertise or knowledge in other areas. Bobby Fischer held many opinions that many would denounce: but if he was recorded speaking about the best chess openers then there is no reason to factor in his opinions on Semitic people groups. The two topics simply aren't related and it's unlikely that one is affected by the other. Likewise it's unlikely that this opinion piece on "sugar babies" is affected by the author's opinions regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 US presidential election. You cannot simply hop from one conclusion to another with no explanation and expect others to agree that you are making a cogent argument.

Further, claiming there may have been issues with or that you personally take issue with the logistics of the last United States presidential election is hardly akin to being a flat earther. The former represents a broad range of perspectives some of which are contrary to the facts and some of which are of a more philosophical or pragmatic nature and are worthy of discussion. The latter is a school of thought which hasn't held any real ground for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. This kind of tattletale rhetoric is contrary to the spirit of serious discussion and debate which HN is known for. If it had not become so common, I would simply write it off as trolling or perhaps your confusion as to the purpose of this site. At this point, however, I think I speak for many when I say that you ought to save that kind of foolishness for either Reddit or Twitter where it will be applauded.

Are you intending to convey that the author somehow deserves to be considered an expert in sugar babies? ..wow.. I'm truly speechless.

Unsolicited feedback for you, sir, madame, or they @powerslacker: Characterizing things as "absurd" is detrimental to discussion quality in every case across the board. The label is arbitrary and uncurious, making it a poor choice of starting place if your goal is to inform and persuade.

Best wishes, MD.

I'm not calling the author an expert on sugar babies. I was providing an example to show that it is illogical to dismiss everything a person says, even if they have said something outrageous in the past.

Absurd: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

It's not detrimental to discussion to point out an absurd statement. I'm not saying absurd in order to be rude, but pointing out that it's a logical error. It's not a poor starting place if my goal is to inform others that the addressed statement is in fact absurd. Since that is exactly what I was attempting to do I'd call it a very reasonable starting place.

Let's please just agree to ignore each other from now on. We'll both have a better life this way. Cheers.

No you are just pretending to be reasonable. It's fake. You are ignoring information and calling it generosity of mind.

I don't care what you assert is "logical." Because you can't even modus ponens correctly.

I don't like reading liars. I don't pretend the words someone says are uncorrelated over time. Liars lie a lot.

A credibility issue which is quite relevant. Is she making up everything in that article?

Roughly a third of the country knows it was stolen. The rest either approve, but lie, or weren’t paying attention.

It's funny because you're a liar

Polling is conclusive in this respect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com