Comment by dalke | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dalke | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> May I add that the extend of the words in your argument and the complexity of the words you are using in it helps nothing to your point.

You've now twice in this thread made the claim that the person whose views you disagree with used a style that was too complex. Have you considered that you may be beyond your intellectual depth?

You have not established that "objectification" is used incorrectly here. You have acknowledged that it can have multiple meanings, and stated that the most common usage as defined in a dictionary does not apply. You have not shown that all alternative definitions of the term, including specifically, the one used in the philosophy of ethics, is also incorrect for this use. I gave a citation to Martha Nussbaum as a relatively recent reference for this definition.

You'll noticed that in my replies I summarized the relevant points I had made earlier. You do not do the same courtesy.

I am not able to see in radar frequencies. I still know where X-band is, and I've measured its wavelength. I am not able to hear the ultrasonic sounds of dolphins, but I can hear it after shifting downwards. I cannot feel distant earthquakes, but I can read the output from a seismograph. Yes, I can explain to a colorblind person where green is. Can't you?

You pile specious arguments on top of ad hominem ones, yet still consider yourself assailable on a mountain of logic? Do you have the humility to examine your logic for faults, and the grace to help others? Or are you only out to win internet debating points?

> You've now twice in this thread made the claim that the person whose views you disagree with used a style that was too complex

Now I am 100% sure you are just another silly troll.

"Silly troll?" You do like the use of ad hominem. Here are the citations.

"doing it in a overly-formal tone just to look more serious to gain credibility with mostly biased, false or unrelated claims"

"the extend of the words in your argument and the complexity of the words you are using in it helps nothing to your point."

I observe that statements like this are rare in just about every conversation, HN thread, or other debate that I've participated in or read. I believe then that this is part of your debate style.

Those quoted statements are prima facie ad hominem statements, and lack the followup to show that they are otherwise. The frequent use of fallacies is, as I've shown, characteristic of your arguments. That you disparage others for using those fallacies does not mean that you yourself avoid them. Indeed, it seems that your argument style is to attribute fallacious reasoning on your opponent, rather than explain why it is actually fallacious. This, of course, is a fallacious appeal to authority.

Based on your resistance to explaining the logic behind your reasoning, including even your disdain at providing citation references for the quotes you gave, and combined with the rest of this discussion, I have come to the tentative conclusion that you enjoy rhetoric for the edge that it gives you during debates. But you have been swayed by its power at making an easy attack, and do not care for the slower, more difficult job of using it as a tool to understand your own prejudices and inconsistencies.

In other words, you prefer to call people names than to explain yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com