> > 1) You've got your chronology and causality wrong[1]. No, I did not "stalk [your] other comment threads" after my other response to you.

> My chronology is correct, and the available evidence points to you stalking:

You may have happened to get the internal chronology between those two comments right (or not; I don't know), but not the main thread thereof: I didn't look up either of those two comments because of the other; rather, I was already scrolling through your comments and came upon them both independently of each other.

> Comment where I said "Don't be intellectually dishonest." to you on the CDC thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290599, 2024-08-19 12:49:16

Yeah -- the first (and possibly only?) personal attack among our interactions. (Unless you've kept it up; I don't care to go back and look for more, so you tell me.)

> Your personal attack in a completely separate thread on Google/Meta: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290855 2024-08-19 13:23:48, around half an hour later. You had no comments on that Google/Meta thread before I posted my first one at 12:49.

There was no "personal attack" from me in that comment. Here's all I wrote:

"Neither of those proved anything; they're just assertions."

That's just pointing out that A is not the same as B. It doesn't talk about any persons at all. And:

"Reading some of your other comments, it's hard to think you're unaware of the difference. So what's this? Doesn't look all that much like arguing in good faith."

This was praise: I'm saying that until then, you had displayed what I read as the intellectual prowess to be aware that bare-faced assertions do not constitute proofs. Followed by my saddened observation that the only reason I could see for you saying something so obviously wrong was indicative of you not living up to that. Is that a "personal attack"? I don't think so: It's me telling what it looked like to me, because that is what it looked like to me. That's just a fact: It did.

> My comment calling out your stalking on the CDC thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41295767, 2024-08-20 00:47:02, around 12 hours after that.

There was no "stalking". (Except yours, today; see below, at the end.)

> Your comment on the CDC thread (that I'm replying to) denying the events above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41298836, 2024-08-20 11:05:21, around 11 hours after that.

Of course I denied "stalking" you, as I still do. Because I didn't.

> > 2) And no, pointing out flawed logic in an argument is not a "personal attack".

> You're not pointing out flawed logic

Yes I am. As explained here, and, AFAICR, several times before.

> you're using a comment I made on one thread to attack me in a completely separate thread.

1) Once you're into the paranoid mindset, it is of course inevitable that you will see it as an "attack". In actuality, it's just using a contrasting example to show that if anyone is having trouble with the concept of intellectual honesty, it's you -- just perfectly legitimately using an example from your own repertoire.

> And you used the phrase "And, hey, at least I'm not the one calling my bare assertions "proofs." How's that for "intellectually dishonest"?" That's a personal attack.

So, hey, you could just explain it: Do you actually think that you just saying that "this is the way it is" somehow proves that that is the way it is? If not, then how is arguing as if you actually did believe so not an example of -- your own -- intellectual dishonesty?

> > 3) My interests and motivations don't affect the validity of my arguments.

> Of purely logical arguments, yes.

Exactly. So try and engage with those, in stead of resorting to screeching "intellectually dishonest personal attack!" as an excuse not to. Or, you know, since (as we both know) the reason you're trying to avoid that is that you know you were wrong, just man the fuck up and admit that you were.

> However, someone who is fundamentally dishonest cannot be trusted to act in good faith, avoid concealing, distorting, or lying about evidence, or reason intellectually, or use words correctly without using alternative definitions or changing their use of them mid-argument.

Yeah, but I'm sure that if you work hard at it, you can rise above all that.

> Your personal attacks, your blatant partisan political statements ("I'm fairly sure there are schools ryun by anti-vaxxer nutjobs"), and your lie about the chronology of your personal attack indicate that you're not interested in being honest, only pushing an agenda.

1) As shown, there were no "personal attacks" from me. At least not initiating them, and certainly no more so than from you.

2) Again, political opinions, however blatantly partisan, have no effect on the validity of a logical statement. Be it a fanatical pro-vaxxer, a fanatical anti-vaxxer, Stalin, or St Francis of Assisi who says it, "Assertions are not proofs" can be evaluated on its own merits. (So why are you so reluctant to do so?)

3) There cannot be any "lie about the chronology of [my] personal attack" when there was no personal attack from me to have any chronology to begin with.

4) Sure, I do have an agenda here. It's a simple one: I'm for the truth, and against intellectual dishonesty. That's all. Didn't you even notice that that's all I've been talking about?!? I don't give a shit about your actual argument for or against, what was it again, "Google/Meta". In fact, I have no idea what the whole thread is about or which side you're on ("both equally big arseholes, each in their own way" would probably be my opinion, judging from your moniker for it), and I don't much care. (Far less so now, of course, at least as far as your particular opinion is concerned.)

> > 4) What you claim are "proofs" are still just assertions, and working for a particular employer is still a choice. You were wrong, that is all.

> I do not need to defend myself against someone who behaves like this.

Yeah, that's the cheap cop-out. "I can be as much of an asshole as I want and not get called out on it, as long as I can claim that the caller-out is an asshole!" Sure, some may buy the caller-out being an asshole... But they're still going to realise you're being one too. That cheap cop-out isn't the panacea you seem to think it is.

> > I think I've replied to you exactly twice before, and you posted this exact same (apart from the link) response to both

Explaining why I was a bit confused at the beginning there, is all. Genulinely thought some bug had caused the exact same post to be posted in two different threads, at first.

> Yes, because I think it's helpful for future readers of both threads to see that you're making personal attacks from one thread into another. That's important context when evaluating the truthfulness of the writers.

Yup. Let's see if most people think it's more truthful to point out that assertions are not proofs, or to screech "intellectually dishonest personal attack!" in response.

> dang: if you read this, I apologize for degrading the quality of the discourse, but I feel a need to defend myself when other users engage in personal attacks and gaslighting against me, and it isn't flagged.

Dan G: I do not apologise for pointing out that assertions are not proofs, nor for claiming that I'm not the one who is being intellectually dishonest for pointing it out. And I don't even think I need apologise for pointing out the possible abuse of the site's "flag" functionality in another, carefully-not-referenced by my interlocutor, thread where he apparently did do exactly what he's accusing me of here -- "stalked" me to it because of his grudge fom here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41298796 .