Ethically Sourced Lena Picture

You are obviously quite wrapped around the axle here. Though you may not like it, the logical fallacy applies here as you're the one introducing criteria that make people feel bad. The full image is not something here in the room with us. It's something in your mind that you're transmitting to everyone else to help you come with the world.

If you and everyone would else would stop running around traumatizing people, "HEY this picture makes me feel bad and it should make you feel bad, too," we'd all feel a lot better. But just a suggestion: perhaps you would feel a lot better if you examined why this picture triggers you so badly? What is it inside you that makes you react so strongly? Did your family have moral issues about women getting money from men for showing their bodies off?

> it is minor and not actually relevant to the thrust of the conversation.

You brought it up, "Doc"! Another perfect example of a Mott and Bailey. Again, look into your personal psychology and family system. Narcissistic projection like this is a typical symptom of a crummy upbringing. In short, learn what things you can change (yourself) and what things you can not change (A woman's decision 50 years ago to get money for images of her body). Taking care of your "stuff" will make you a lot less reactive and more persuasive.

I've never heard "body shaming is bad unless you're body shaming a body shamer".

It misses the point in that there is collateral damage for body shaming as well - if you mock trump's weight because he is a bad person, you're still implying "fat=bad" to every good fat person out there too.

So am I allowed to mock those liberals physical qualities now, since they mocked trump for mocking someone's physical qualities? If they don't want to be mocked they shouldn't do the same to others.

Time and time again, you resort to name-calling and insults rather than focus on issues. You call into question my character and integrity rather than grapple with the issue or argument. You use logical fallacy terminology with limited understanding of their actual structure and misapply them in argumentation.

You may be a kind and intellectually considered person in other aspects of your life, but this is not an example. May kindness find you, may people give you grace, and may you be a source of warmth to others.

Your response is utterly baffling and I feel as though I am in some sort of parody.

>sorry for the big words? maybe look them up?

It's not that I don't understand the motte and bailey fallacy, it's that you are misapplying when discussing my posts. In a motte and bailey, the person making an argument would like to advance controversial claim B, but when B is attacked, they will defend claim A while continuing to advance or believe claim B. A is generally a non-controversial and trivial statement. What do you believe is the motte, and what do you believe is the bailey in my argument?

I have chosen at times to focus on what I believe is the main issue, namely that there is an ethical question around inclusivity and the ways in which it shapes access to and development of future technology. This is the argument I am advancing, and one that is informed by a compassionate desire to believe people who say that something makes them feel excluded. If I choose not to be derailed by quibbles over technicalities of categorization that do not change the fundamental nature of my claim, that is not a motte and bailey.

A more correct use of motte and bailey could be easily applied to your own arguments. Your motte A is that a digital image is a collection of pixels, and that any context, history or provenance is something that people bring with them. Your bailey B is that context, history and and provenance should have no bearing on whether people feel excluded or on administrative decisions surrounding images. A does not imply B, yet you repeatedly use A to defend B.

> You just dip into this account t o be nasty without anyone knowing who you are

Can you give an example of where I have been nasty? I literally wished good things for you in the last post and have done my best at every point in this conversation to turn the other cheek. In contrast, you have - insulted my "crummy upbringing" - called into question the "moral issues" of my family - have argued I am "running around traumatizing people" - characterized my statements as "narcissistic projection" repeatedly

>You asked me to look into what drove me to write what I did, and I did just that and you overlooked it >Honestly I care so little I literally passed out, but I did inquire into myself as to why I even bothered writing back to you. And you know what came up? I feel bad for the people in your life who have to put up with you. And then I realized you're not hiding behind your keyboard when you talk to them, using an obvious troll account on HN like you are, just look at your post history.

Your conclusion is that what drove you to write these posts is that you feel bad for people who have to put up with me. I can only comment that there is a failure of self-reflection occurring.

>And obvious troll is obvious. A 9 year old account with 17 karma

This is my main, I'm just not very active on HN. People do have a range of behaviors, and even though you appear very active on this alt account of yours, I am not similarly active or engaged with this site despite this being my main. Very often, I am happy to learn from the interesting conversations without feeling a need to comment on my own. Your assumption that the account on which I am posting is an alt is a projection of your own desire to separate your views on the "chillingeffect"[1] from your main. In general, it feels as though you have trouble acknowledging that people have habits and views which diverge from your own, and in this case have reacted with anger rather than intellectual curiosity.

>I'm not required to be kind to everyone all the time and certainly not to an HN troll. Delete your account and get real.

I really truly believe that you would benefit from discussing this thread with someone you trust in a safe space. That could be a domestic partner, a family member, a councilor, a priest, or a co-worker. Just someone whose judgement and morals you admire. Someone who will understand that one interaction does not define the entirety of your identity and who believes in your innate goodness. Give it some time to cool off and come down from the feelings of anger that you are expressing here, and be the person you want to see in the world.

It may be helpful for you to consider this excerpt from Psychology Today:

|The precursor of anger in mammals is a perception of vulnerability plus threat. The more vulnerable people and animals feel, the more threat is perceived. The function of anger is to protect vulnerability and neutralize threat.

|In humans, the threat is almost always to the ego (how we want to think of ourselves and have others think of us). Anger neutralizes ego-threat by devaluing, demeaning, or undermining the confidence of the person perceived to be threatening.

[1] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-ef...