How to lose an argument online • Hacker News Board

Re: How to lose an argument online

#11

Post by gamble » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 8:30 PM UTC

billybob wrote: post #8

I understand why "Godwin's law" is so often cited, but really. It's silly to compare Obama or Bush or whoever to Hitler simply because you don't like them, but it's not silly to bring up Nazis when someone is advocating eugenics. It's also not silly to bring up Hitler, Stalin and Mao when somebody claims that religion is the source of all oppression. They clearly demonstrate that atheistic worldviews can be radical a…

Not that I necessarily disagree with your point, but it should be mentioned that Hitler and the Nazi party as a whole were not atheists. I don't know where the idea that they were atheists comes from.

Re: How to lose an argument online

#12

Post by tezza » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:27 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #6

tezza wrote: post #2

IMO Try not to mention breasts, it doesn't help your argument: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=909015 and woefully still digging the hole: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=908944 ---- Funny that another breast mentioning thread devolved into a a homophobic and antisemitic troll http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=909389 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=913155

Uh, what?

the article mentions topics not to mention. Like comparisons-to-Hitler.

Mentioning breasts is a similar way to instantly lose an argument, and I provided some links to arguments that relied mentioned breasts and died.

Did you follow any of the links?

Re: How to lose an argument online

#13

Post by jrockway » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:44 PM UTC

tezza wrote: post #12

jrockway wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what?

the article mentions topics not to mention. Like comparisons-to-Hitler. Mentioning breasts is a similar way to instantly lose an argument, and I provided some links to arguments that relied mentioned breasts and died. Did you follow any of the links?

I did. I thought the people that brought up breasts won. I agreed with them, and they got lots of karma points.

If that's losing, I want to lose.

Re: How to lose an argument online

#14

Post by tezza » Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 7:36 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #13

tezza wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the article mentions topics not to mention. Like comparisons-to-Hitler. Mentioning breasts is a similar way to instantly lose an argument, and I provided some links to arguments that relied mentioned breasts and died. Did you follow any of the links?

I did. I thought the people that brought up breasts won. I agreed with them, and they got lots of karma points. If that's losing, I want to lose.

In a HN sense, you're right. I think (and I did say IMO) that they lost the arguments. One moron started abusing gays and jews (last link). Is that "winning" by your definition?

Re: How to lose an argument online

#15

Post by ErrantX » Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 10:34 AM UTC

tezza wrote: post #14

jrockway wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did. I thought the people that brought up breasts won. I agreed with them, and they got lots of karma points. If that's losing, I want to lose.

In a HN sense, you're right. I think (and I did say IMO) that they lost the arguments. One moron started abusing gays and jews (last link). Is that "winning" by your definition?

> One moron started abusing gays and jews (last link). Is that "winning" by your definition?

That wasn't the one that brought up the breasts though was it? The person that did made reasonable (if direct) points and obviously people agreed with them.... that sounds like "winning".

Re: How to lose an argument online

#16

Post by tezza » Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 11:12 AM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #15

tezza wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a HN sense, you're right. I think (and I did say IMO) that they lost the arguments. One moron started abusing gays and jews (last link). Is that "winning" by your definition?

> One moron started abusing gays and jews (last link). Is that "winning" by your definition? That wasn't the one that brought up the breasts though was it? The person that did made reasonable (if direct) points and obviously people agreed with them.... that sounds like "winning".

What I said: Funny that another breast mentioning thread devolved into a a homophobic and antisemitic troll

I didn't say it was the same person. So there were two morons working in tamden (kryo and Zarathu).

You conveniently ignore the poor person[1] who replied to the first breasts comment. She didn't get any upvotes, but the aggressive first post did and the homophobic anti-semite managed to get an upvote.

tianaco was so offended she wrote kryo, that was a really nasty, disparaging, and insensitive thing to write. You cast this nasty/insensitive as reasonable (if direct).

-----------

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=912851 (tianaco)