Sorry, HN doesn't provide the clearest interface for communication.

My last two posts were specifically referring to the people who were downmodding me without posting any specifics. Unless HN hands out additional powers, which I have not been granted, you cannot downmod my responses to you. I did not mean to rush you (nor were my two parent posts in any way directed at you).

I will read your post now.

Edit: And likely post edit this post with responses.

>I can see it caused you enough distress to post twice.

I hope I was clear before, but I feel the need to state it clearly: you have not distressed me.

------------

Ok, many points are not relevant, but I'll respond.

>Let me be straightforward with you, since you seem to be the sort that will not appreciate the standard cultural niceties.

Thank you.

>So perhaps maybe you just did a poor job to express your specific point as you tripped over yourself to demonstrate to everyone you have read a bit of philosophy and logic.

I am waiting for the Straw Man.

> But it certainly would be reasonable that you entered a conversation without invitation responding to

No invitation required here.

>> That the reasoning is fallacious doesn't make the conclusion incorrect.

This actually depends on the conclusion. It depends on how all the words are defined, but basically, people come to non-real conclusions all the time.

>With:

>> However, if you study the truth table a bit longer, you will realize that you should stop reading any text which contains fallacious or self-contradictory logic.

>Implying that if you could construe any single statement in my post as lacking in robustness from a logical perspective, then you should simply ignore the entire thing.

My response was not directed at you. No, seriously. Go check the post history.

Also, that is basically the implication. And it's basically true. It's pretty much what you should do. Of course, there are many reasons not too: historical, curiosity, "maybe I read it wrong", etc. However, according the the rule of logic: there is no reason to consider fallacious logic in regards to any particular conclusion.

>This is regardless of the author's intent that this actually be a real point, or perhaps just a literary device or joke. One might actually read the whole post first, notice there is some technical substance, and come to a different conclusion before posting.

Fallacies should be called out as soon as they are detected. Consider the alternative: you are operating on fallacious logic. Good luck!

>This impression is further reinforced by your frustration over rate limiting as you implied that my response,

Again, my apologies for the confusion, but those frustrations were not directed at you, nor were/are they about you. You seem like a mostly pleasant person. (seriously)

>specifically saying that I didn't actually present my tautology as anything but a cute literary device to open what I considered to be a rather dry if somewhat acidic post.

And, yes. The Straw Man has not been presented (in my ~20min analysis).

>You said,

>> I've been rate-limited, so any fallacious (or non) arguments posted in response will need to wait a while for a proper response (some have already been typed up).

>Which from my perspective certainly looks like you were ready to fire off a post explaining to me with as many latin words as possible aimed at trying to prove exactly that.

The response I gave you is what I wrote up immediately before receiving the rate limit notice. I just kept the tab open and tried to post it every so often. I may have edited slightly after the first post attempt. I'd go read my response, then read the post the response was for, then come back here and read the above excerpt from your post.

>Perhaps, in the future, you may want to consider efficacy first and strict correctness secondly when discussing things in a casual forum with the (entirely barbaric, I agree) feature of "downvoting."

Please consider in any future encounters with me that I have already considered such concerns. Efficacy without correctness is madness. I cannot guarantee that I have considered all concerns, however.

>Or perhaps just not entering conversations you don't have anything substantial to add to.

I'm not not sure what this means. I don't consider posting a response on HN to be "entering conversations". It's some text in a tree, people can read it or not.

>You might feel some irritation at this, because it can seem like an anti-intellectual stance. Sadly, you're existing in a community that has to deal with many people perpetually misusing terms like "ad hominem" and "genetic fallacy" and "truth table" in the worst way, to the point where it's a cognitive shortcut to simply pass it by or perhaps even express this cultural signal via downvotes.
I don't like it very much either, but cultural norms are not something we rationally argue with but instead can only hope to influence gradually.

I just try to point out the flaws as I see them. I'm not sure anyone else can do better.