Hacker News Reader

I disagree with this: when an actor is known for repeated bad faith, it's often a net gain of time to dismiss what they say by default. Only if someone else presents the same argument should you take the time to analyze it.

View on HN

Saying you disagree with my original comment might be inaccurate, seeing how it didn't touch on repeated bad faith; not that habitual lying would make any difference to the validity of any argument (which depends only on being logical sound).

I do agree ignoring known and mercenary liars does save time.

Given the history of PwC and the Big 4, whether you specifically mention repeated bad faith or not, it's relevant to whether your analogy holds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com