Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 206 posts

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#181

Post by dragonwriter »

gd1 wrote: post #113
dragonwriter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay. Is there any reason to believe this is a common alignment of views? While I haven't seen things broken out at that detail level (e.g., gay marriage views of gay Christians), in general, belief that society should accept homosexuality tracks pret…

It's perfectly possible to believe that society should accept homosexuality and also be against gay marriage. It's a complex issue. 'Marriage' is a religious ceremony, and freedom of religion and association is a thing. If the Christians don't want to let the gays join their club and do their funny little ceremony, then so be it. Any change needs to be driven by the Pope and the church itself, not enforced by the sta…

"Marriage" had been the English name for the civil unions as well as the religious unions for much longer than the modern separation of Church and State changed those into distinct institutions with the same name.

"Civil union" as an institution name was created in the US for the separate-but-notionally-equal state law institution adopted in some areas while denying civil marriage to same-sex partners.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#182

Post by michaelbuddy »

mindslight wrote: post #121
kbenson wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have something specific to say regarding Peter Thiel's specific contribution to Facebook's current or past stance on privacy, I think you are being far too alarmist with an entirely unsupported position. For example, it's entirely possible that Peter Thiel is part of a losing faction of the board that values more privacy, and has actually been a force for the better with regard to privacy at Facebook? Is t…

What aspect of Facebook's business model is not based on monetizing surveillance? Sure, it's possible that Thiel has been a silently pushing for pivoting to eg a subscription model or static banner ads. It's just not likely.

A lot of people like the day job because the pay is good and then find ways to work against it at night. Their 'hypocrisy' is actually an imbalance in their universe they seek to correct.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#183

Post by jdmichal »

dragonwriter wrote: post #74
jdmichal wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of what ad hominem is... Discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer. The thing is, that has zero effect on whether the argument is valid or not. The fact that I state 10 wrong facts about bananas does not mean that the next fact I state is wrong, even though I've far and away proven myself to not be a trusted expert on banana facts.

> That's kind of what ad hominem is... Strictly, the fallacy involved is tu quoque -- if it is used to rebut the argument which is inconsistent with the persons behavior -- not ad hominem . They are related, but distinct. Although I suppose if one took the route of: 1. A says X, 2. But A acts in accord with not-X, 3. Therefore, A is a hypocrite. 4. And, because A is a hypocrite, one should disregard A's arguments You…

Sure. tu quoque is just the specific case of ad hominem being used in this instance. ad hominem is any logical argument which attacks the arguer instead of the argument itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#184

Post by jdmichal »

coldtea wrote: post #68
jdmichal wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of what ad hominem is... Discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer. The thing is, that has zero effect on whether the argument is valid or not. The fact that I state 10 wrong facts about bananas does not mean that the next fact I state is wrong, even though I've far and away proven myself to not be a trusted expert on banana facts.

> That's kind of what ad hominem is... Discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer. The thing is, that has zero effect on whether the argument is valid or not. In real life the content of an argument isn't the only think that matters. The motives of the arguer are also important -- what they're trying to achieve/sell by using it etc. That's because people don't only offer their arguments to have other people di…

If I'm trying to sell you a high-efficiency AC unit, I will assert that it's a high-efficiency AC unit that will reduce your monthly bills, so you should buy it. You answer back that of course I would say you should buy it, because I'm selling it... Except that has absolutely zero impact on the fact that the AC unit is high-efficiency thereby will save you money.

This is why ad hominem is a fallacy. It provides zero evidence for or against an argument. It's completely orthogonal.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#185

Post by jdmichal »

coldtea wrote: post #102
stcredzero wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trying to discredit an argument because the person saying it is a hypocrite, which is also an ad-hominem . If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person saying it were hypocritical.

> If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person saying it were hypocritical. And nobody said otherwise -- for the core argument. But in real life we don't usually know whether the thing (let's call it A) itself that an argument tries to prove is true. We only know that the argument in favor of A is formulated correctly (follows its premises correctly, etc). Regarding A though, there might be…

> E.g. if I say "A is good for everybody, for X,Y,Z reasons" and I do the opposite of A, then the possibility of A really being good for everybody is somewhat lessened by the prior that "the person proposing A does not follow A".

"It's good for you to not smoke. Now excuse me while I take my smoke break."

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#186

Post by jshevek »

vanattab wrote: post #126
zorpner wrote: post #37

The fact that Thiel is still involved with Y Combinator should tell you everything you need to know about the disingenuity of their "commitment" to equality and diversity.

Does tolerance mean no Republicans/Libertarians allowed in any of our social/work circles? Is that where we're going as Democrats? If so I will be putting the Kool Aid down and jumping off the wagon at the next stop.

Yes, it appears to me to be increasingly popular among liberals (esp. among the younger generation) to use any tactic they can to silence, ostracize, and censor dissenting opinions.

It also seems to me that this has the effect of driving moderates to the right.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#187

Post by stcredzero »

linkregister wrote: post #115
coldtea wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person saying it were hypocritical. And nobody said otherwise -- for the core argument. But in real life we don't usually know whether the thing (let's call it A) itself that an argument tries to prove is true. We only know that the argument in favor of A is formulated correctly (follows its premises correctly, etc). Regarding A though, there might be…

I'm convinced that stcredzero is intentionally misdirecting you into arguing about logical fallacies. Based off of her/his other comments in this thread, it doesn't appear that she or he cares much about them. stcredzero's viewpoint is clear and not focused on policing the thread from logical fallacies. I would say it's a fallacy to harp on logical fallacies; it's not as if everyone has infinite time to convert all a…

I'm convinced that stcredzero is intentionally misdirecting you into arguing about logical fallacies.

I'm just convinced coldtea is wrong. The fallacious use of logical fallacies has taken over far too much of public debate.

The common list of logical fallacies entered Western culture from the ancient Greeks but shouldn't be taken with religious fervor.

Sure. Let's apply them with logic.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#188

Post by stcredzero »

jdmichal wrote: post #185
coldtea wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person saying it were hypocritical. And nobody said otherwise -- for the core argument. But in real life we don't usually know whether the thing (let's call it A) itself that an argument tries to prove is true. We only know that the argument in favor of A is formulated correctly (follows its premises correctly, etc). Regarding A though, there might be…

> E.g. if I say "A is good for everybody, for X,Y,Z reasons" and I do the opposite of A, then the possibility of A really being good for everybody is somewhat lessened by the prior that "the person proposing A does not follow A". "It's good for you to not smoke. Now excuse me while I take my smoke break."

Thus proving once and for all that smoking isn't bad for you!

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#189

Post by coldtea »

jdmichal wrote: post #185
coldtea wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person saying it were hypocritical. And nobody said otherwise -- for the core argument. But in real life we don't usually know whether the thing (let's call it A) itself that an argument tries to prove is true. We only know that the argument in favor of A is formulated correctly (follows its premises correctly, etc). Regarding A though, there might be…

> E.g. if I say "A is good for everybody, for X,Y,Z reasons" and I do the opposite of A, then the possibility of A really being good for everybody is somewhat lessened by the prior that "the person proposing A does not follow A". "It's good for you to not smoke. Now excuse me while I take my smoke break."

I'm not sure what is the example supposed to prove.

That what I said doesn't always hold?

Of course it doesn't.

That's why I wrote about possibilities, and only said that the prior that the person preaching X doesn't follow X "somewhat lessens" the possibility that X is true.

I never said that someone "preaching X and doing the opposite" proves that X is not true.

If I had said that, your example would be a valid refutation. But I haven't, and it's only attacking a straw man.

Besides, the only reason that your example case seems obviously wrong to you is because you're taking as a given what you are supposed: you already know that smoking is bad.

If you didn't, and someone said to you "smoking is bad for you", while he himself was smoking, you would be justifiably suspicious to consider whether it's not actually bad, and the other person is lying or hiding something from you (e.g. to keep all the cigarettes for himself).

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#190

Post by coldtea »

stcredzero wrote: post #108
coldtea wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person saying it were hypocritical. And nobody said otherwise -- for the core argument. But in real life we don't usually know whether the thing (let's call it A) itself that an argument tries to prove is true. We only know that the argument in favor of A is formulated correctly (follows its premises correctly, etc). Regarding A though, there might be…

Thus it is enlightening to know if an argument for A is being made hypocritically, to evaluate the possibility of A being true in a wider context. That sounds like logic, but it makes much less sense than it sounds. So you're saying it's good to examine the hypocrisy of someone's argument, because of the possibility that there's contradictory facts or implications that the arguer is holding back on us? Not only is th…

>So you're saying it's good to examine the hypocrisy of someone's argument, because of the possibility that there's contradictory facts or implications that the arguer is holding back on us?

Yes.

>Not only is that also ad-hominem it's a fuzzy half-logical ad-hominem.

It's also correct, and a pragmatic way to find hidden motives in real life.

Post reply on HN