Being descriptive about behavior is not a personal attack even if it puts someone in a negative light. “You’re a mass murder” can be a purely descriptive statement even if it says bad things about the individual.

"Being descriptive about behavior" can certainly be a personal attack. It just depends. Most of us wouldn't like the worst behavior we ever did to be repeated in every context that we were mentioned.

More importantly, disingenuousness is not a behavior. It isn't something a person says or does. You have to infer it from something they say or do. Internet users are far far too quick to make this leap, and it breaks the site guidelines to do that on HN.

It's entirely possible to disagree with someone without accusing them personally of being dishonest.

This is not controversial.

The circumstances of the discussion are not comparable in any way to interviewing a mass murderer about his recent autobiography.

What about Bernie Madoff‘s autobiography? Calling a specific action of his dishonest is simply factual.

Notice I am not saying Madoff is in general is dishonest, only a specific action.

When you have proof that they've been dishonest, it is sometimes valid to bring that up.

Really disliking an opinion is not proof that they've been dishonest.

In other words you agreed with what I said, thanks.

Anyway, that’s a completely different argument. You assume the reason someone used such language was because they simply disagreed.

I am not saying it’s an accurate assessment, but an argument it’s self is evidence. Calling this absurd based only on the argument is fine if you have enough evidence as with say a modest proposal: http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/30827_modestpr...

Now, if you disagree with that assessment fine, but don’t assume the assessment is always disingenuous. Someone may honestly believe the original statement is so far from a rational argument that it can’t be serious. They could simply be leavening their https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window.

Granted they might have simply been using abusive language because they have poor debating skills. Either way it’s a sign to stop a debate and go onto something more productive.

> In other words you agreed with what I said, thanks.

Let me be clear. This is not a situation where you would bring up dishonesty if you had proof, and there is no proof.

I agree with what you're saying about Bernie Madoff's autobiography itself, but strongly state that it is not analogous to this situation.

So if your 'what about' was a total tangent, I agree with your post. If you were trying to use it for an argument by analogy, I do not agree with that argument.

> You assume the reason someone used such language was because they simply disagreed.

More that they lack empathy! The comparison accused of being 'disingenuous' is not an inherently ridiculous one. All it takes is strongly valuing the second amendment to make that comparison. It's not in the same ballpark as a modest proposal. Anyone who honestly believes that the statement is far from a rational argument is not even trying to understand.