296
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
296 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
4592 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's possible for more than one thing to be bad, we don't have to pick just one of the two.
"worse" generally means more bad than another thing that is also bad.
It also implies that one (the worst one) deserves more attention. In this case we should probably be paying attention to both.
Mm no, they just said it was worse. You're reaching.
No, they said it was "far worse," which definitely implies a ranking of how bad they perceive the respective issues.
This is what they said; they implied the root comment was saying that two things couldn't be bad or only one could be solved. But it didn't. He said, paraphrasing, "there are two issues and I find this one to be far worse".
Ranking issues in terms of how bad they are seems a fairly normal thing to do. It also implies that there is more than one.
I don't agree with that interpretation.
They simply stated that ranking things by "badness" also implies a ranking in terms of which one of those bad things is more urgent and should be addressed first - not that one thing was bad and that the other wasn't, or that only one thing could be addressed.
It's a bad interpretation but you are, or course, welcome to it
I'm merely reiterating the position of the poster you replied to.
You can disagree with that position, but you seemed to be replying to a position that nobody was even taking.
I am not, you just haven't understood the position. But that's fine.
You were clearly arguing against a position that nobody here took.
That means you either lack the reading comprehension to understand what was stated, or you're purposefully creating a strawman to argue against.
I've explained in detail, you've not understood the explanation and taken an illogical stance.
I can't help you out of a hole you've put yourself in. It's okay to disagree though, you don't have to lower yourself to ad hominems.
Why complain about ad hominems after attacking me? You're the one who lowered the level of the discourse - why are you complaining now?
Can you quote where I attacked you?
Of course, I'd be happy to!
It was when you questioned my comprehension of the argument that was being made instead of the argument itself by saying "you just haven't understood the position."
That's literally an ad hominem.
No that was an observation. I'm not judging you for it, I don't think you're of poor character due to it.
You however did attack my character. Ironically because once again you've misunderstood the situation.
An observation about the argument is part of a debate, an observation about the person that is making the argument is an ad hominem.
It's literally the definition of "ad hominem."
In that regard, your defense that you were merely making an observation is irrelevant. It's relevant what you were making an observation about.
Again irrelevant, and I don't particularly care either way what you may or may not think about me.
The relevant point is that instead of tackling the argument that was being made, you decided to instead attack my comprehension.
That's an ad hominem, an attack on the person you're having a conversation with.
I'm not complaining about that, by the way, I'm merely providing you with an explanation since you're apparently ignorant - i.e. lacking the knowledge - of what does and what doesn't constitute an ad hominem.
You, on the other hand, are the one complaining about being attacked after bringing the conversation down to a level of ad hominem attacks, and you seem to be interested in maintaining that low level of discourse by throwing in another ad hominem here.
So my suggestion to you would be: either refrain from attacking other posters and focus on the arguments they're making, or try not acting insulted when you're being treated the same way that you're treating others.