16 ms·

For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. (I'm assuming it's a woman.) I just said I don't think it's such a good idea to write such inflammatory mes

For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. (I'm assuming it's a woman.) I just said I don't think it's such a good idea to write such inflammatory messages if you're concerned about the death threats you're receiving. This includes things like using curse words (e.g. HN is a shithole), and insulting people in other ways. And I'm sorry, but if you know that a park is dangerous because a bunch of drunken teenagers are driving around doing donuts in it, you absolutely don't send your kid to play in it, no matter how safe it's supposed to be. And in particular, if they are, you tell your kid to stop yelling at the kids in the cars. (I realize this isn't what you suggested, but it makes your analogy less of a straw man.) So, this isn't "don't play in traffic", this is "don't actively provoke known-to-be-crazy drivers while running around in oncoming traffic". It's just a bad idea. Especially if you're complaining about getting hurt. Yes, all of these examples are hyperbole, but then again we have no idea about the seriousness of the threats.

jasonlotito 14y ago
> For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. I realize you did. And I'm not suggesting you are a bad person or anything. =) > And I'm sorry, but if you know that a park is dangerous because a bunch of drunken teenagers I'm sorry, but hyperbole can be too ridiculous. Tossing in additional conditions to suit your point is silly, and is really not worth my time.
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  Okay. You came up with the park analogy, saying that if someone got hit by a car in it, that you wouldn't not play in it on that basis. This is a fallacy because that was not the original position. The fallacy is called a straw man, because you put up the "straw man" that is supposedly my argument and then knocked it down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man All I did was attempt to make your analogy match reality more closely, to make it less of a straw man. It is a less flawed analogy now. The reality we are discussing is the situation of the person receiving death threats, not any of this other analogous stuff. But, you know, if you just generally want to have discussions about what to do in different situations where one might or might not need to exercise caution, that can be okay. Of course if someone got hit by accident in a park I wouldn't say that other kids shouldn't play in it.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    Yeah, that's not a straw man. Maybe a hyperbole. But not a straw man. Linking to Straw man on wikipedia doesn't make it a straw man either. But congratulations, you just discovered these things called logical fallacies. > Of course if someone got hit by accident in a park I wouldn't say that other kids shouldn't play in it. .... You are trolling, you have to be.
    - georgeorwell 13y ago
      Hey man, thanks for your reply. From above: > Context. You are supposed to comment on HN. You are not supposed to play in the street. If you played in a park, I'd expect you not to get hit by a car. If someone does get hit by a car while playing in a park, you don't suggest to that person they should avoid playing in the park. What can I say, I just genuinely don't understand why this isn't a straw man. Part of this has to do with me not being the sharpest knife in the block. Of course, if someone just randomly posted a comment here and received one death threat for doing so, I wouldn't say that they shouldn't post anymore. Isn't that the closest interpretation of your analogy? I'm serious. The reason I think the analogy doesn't fit is due to a few differences. First, the person in question has a history of writing fairly inflammatory comments, based on my personal reaction, based on the comments containing curse words, sarcasm, insults, and all-caps (more recently), and finally based on the comments receiving downvotes. The second difference is that it's not one death threat, but multiple death threats that were alleged. The third difference is that I didn't say don't post at all, I just said don't post in such an inflammatory way. Given these three fairly significant differences, I concluded that your argument was a straw man. I could be wrong about that, but you'll have to convince me. I now believe she was referring to Adria and not herself, so I'm really just interested in understanding whether or not the claim of it being a straw man is correct. I mean, I don't want to accuse other people of throwing up straw men if I'm just making a fool of myself. And you're right, although I've known about logic for a while, it's only recently that I started taking it more seriously in the context of discussions. I linked to Wikipedia because I thought you didn't know what a straw man was, I apologize for the insult. Whether or not I'm trolling, I don't know what to say. It strikes me that a lot of people who troll don't even realize that this is what they're doing, so maybe I am, I don't know. It's not conscious, if so. Apologies in advance?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

jasonlotito 14y ago

> For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. I realize you did. And I'm not suggesting you are a bad person or anything. =) > And I'm sorry, but if you know that a park is dangerous because a bunch of drunken teenagers I'm sorry, but hyperbole can be too ridiculous. Tossing in additional conditions to suit your point is silly, and is really not worth my time.

georgeorwell 14y ago
Okay. You came up with the park analogy, saying that if someone got hit by a car in it, that you wouldn't not play in it on that basis. This is a fallacy because that was not the original position. The fallacy is called a straw man, because you put up the "straw man" that is supposedly my argument and then knocked it down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man All I did was attempt to make your analogy match reality more closely, to make it less of a straw man. It is a less flawed analogy now. The reality we are discussing is the situation of the person receiving death threats, not any of this other analogous stuff. But, you know, if you just generally want to have discussions about what to do in different situations where one might or might not need to exercise caution, that can be okay. Of course if someone got hit by accident in a park I wouldn't say that other kids shouldn't play in it.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  Yeah, that's not a straw man. Maybe a hyperbole. But not a straw man. Linking to Straw man on wikipedia doesn't make it a straw man either. But congratulations, you just discovered these things called logical fallacies. > Of course if someone got hit by accident in a park I wouldn't say that other kids shouldn't play in it. .... You are trolling, you have to be.
  - georgeorwell 13y ago
    Hey man, thanks for your reply. From above: > Context. You are supposed to comment on HN. You are not supposed to play in the street. If you played in a park, I'd expect you not to get hit by a car. If someone does get hit by a car while playing in a park, you don't suggest to that person they should avoid playing in the park. What can I say, I just genuinely don't understand why this isn't a straw man. Part of this has to do with me not being the sharpest knife in the block. Of course, if someone just randomly posted a comment here and received one death threat for doing so, I wouldn't say that they shouldn't post anymore. Isn't that the closest interpretation of your analogy? I'm serious. The reason I think the analogy doesn't fit is due to a few differences. First, the person in question has a history of writing fairly inflammatory comments, based on my personal reaction, based on the comments containing curse words, sarcasm, insults, and all-caps (more recently), and finally based on the comments receiving downvotes. The second difference is that it's not one death threat, but multiple death threats that were alleged. The third difference is that I didn't say don't post at all, I just said don't post in such an inflammatory way. Given these three fairly significant differences, I concluded that your argument was a straw man. I could be wrong about that, but you'll have to convince me. I now believe she was referring to Adria and not herself, so I'm really just interested in understanding whether or not the claim of it being a straw man is correct. I mean, I don't want to accuse other people of throwing up straw men if I'm just making a fool of myself. And you're right, although I've known about logic for a while, it's only recently that I started taking it more seriously in the context of discussions. I linked to Wikipedia because I thought you didn't know what a straw man was, I apologize for the insult. Whether or not I'm trolling, I don't know what to say. It strikes me that a lot of people who troll don't even realize that this is what they're doing, so maybe I am, I don't know. It's not conscious, if so. Apologies in advance?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]