Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Let's look at the opening of the two comments which clearly mirror each other in tone and structure.

The tricky thing about environmental regulations is that they are crafted and utilized by NIMBYs to block any infrastructure development. Even if, on balance, the infrastructure is a net positive.

The tricky thing about deregulating the environment is that deregulations are uncrafted and utilized by amoral capitalists who want to make money no matter what, including by poisoning the land and sea and air as much as they want.

Perhaps missing the point like this was not deliberate, but you nevertheless missed it.

latter says that the former person is either [...] or [...] [...] the latter is an ad hominem assuming bad faith

You went from characterizing it as an either/or comment in one sentence, to characterizing it as a bad faith assumption in the next. This is equivalent to: 'he says it's either odd or even...he says it's odd.'



I don't think that taking umbrage with a rude part of a comment can be called missing the point because another part of the comment was better. Am I missing yours?

And yeah, looks like I dropped an 'or' between 'hominem' and 'assuming'. My bad, I wasn't sure how long the edit window lasts and rushed it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: