Arguing With Peasants Shows a Lack of Self-Discipline

Re:Arguing With Peasants Shows a Lack of Self-Discipline by raganwald on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @09:53AM (#1671802)

If I boil the ad hominem away, the essay points towards an ideal I strive to achieve (also fail to achieve, but my glass is half full).

My ideal is to only respond to posts or comments that are worth an upmod. Downmods are to be imposed silently: If something doesn't contribute to HN, how is it worth any of my words?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Arguing With Peasants Shows a Lack of Self-Discipline by MichaelSalib on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:10AM (#1671859)

If something doesn't contribute to HN, how is it worth any of my words?

Even smart well meaning people are wrong sometimes. And when they are, they are likely to remain wrong until one of their peers takes the time to step back and explain where their facts or reasoning went off the rails.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Arguing With Peasants Shows a Lack of Self-Discipline by raganwald on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:35AM (#1671943)

If something is wrong in a way that doesn't contribute to HN, how is it worth any of my words? Am I supposed to believe that all of you intelligent, well-read folks are going to read it and be seduced by its faulty logic? Most "wrong" comments that don't contribute to HN are simply unfounded claims. I doubt HN will slide into chaos if I ignore them.

There are also arguments that I disagree with that contribute to HN. They're well-reasoned, or they have an interesting perspective. I think they're wrong, but I also think I will learn something by arguing the case. These are worth an upmod and worth some rebuttal.

In the end, if someone posts something that is wrong and not worth an upmod, I think a downmod signals my thoughts on the matter without requiring any explanation whatsoever.

JM2C, and yes I am upmodding you ;-)

[ Parent | on HN ]