[grzm]

I'm glad that you're hoping to be understood. I think it's equally important (perhaps moreso) to also to seek to understand. Steelman† your opponent: interpret what they're saying in the most charitable way. Straw manning or taking pot shots with short questions rarely indicates that you're also seeking to understand or are engaging in good faith. Who knows? They may actually have an important point, perhaps not yet fully formed, and aren't expressing it well. And if others are doing the same, they may help you better express your own perspective.

† https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man

[chickenfries]

I'm familiar with the concept. I try to apply it. Especially when I think the person is arguing in good faith. Which I try to assume.

I understand their point, because they're just repeating the title of a blog post that hit the front page a while back. There was some good faith discussion in that thread between people who disagreed. They didn't start by throwing out a pithy quote and then refusing to respond to someone who presents a valid counter example (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16086244).

[ABCLAW]

I get that you have a pet project in attempting to create civil discussion - that's nice and very commendable. But...

Please apply your own formula to the post you're replying to. Are you understanding what he's telling you, or just trying to tone police?

What happens when your conversation partner is not actually interested in having a discussion, and simply posits a position then abandons it immediately? Is it fruitful to create a position for them? Is that a fair burden for a responder to bear to batter down weak, fallacious, but amply spread falsities?

[grzm]

I do my best to apply my own formula: after all, if I don't think it's worthwhile to do, it would be disingenuous for me to recommend others to do it. I think I do understand where they're coming from, which is why I built upon that in my follow-up comment.

Re-reading my comments above, one thing I think that could be improved is the use of "you": it's colloquial to use it to refer to a person in general as opposed to the person you're currently responding to, and that can be misread (perhaps even unconsciously), particularly when discussions get heated.

Do you have other recommendations as to how this might be better conveyed? What indications do you have that I'm misreading 'chickenfries? I recognize that whether I actually am misreading them (which is always a possibility) and whether or not you read me as misreading them are distinct, and it's my responsibility to do my best to reduce the likelihood of mismatch.

As for your last paragraph, ff you've determined your conversation partner is not actually interested in having a discussion, in my opinion it's best to just let the matter drop, which is what I recommended in my initial comment. You're right, I don't think it's fruitful to create a position for them. Continuing the discussion at that point just adds noise and arguably degrades the forum. FWIW, I'll take my own advice here if I decide that my contributions to this thread are contributing more heat than light.

[ABCLAW]

>in my opinion it's best to just let the matter drop

Sure, because you're focused on the quality of conversation. That's what you're optimizing for. For others, who are interested in the quality of available information, posting a quick rebuttal to signal to other readers that the post in question has issues may be preferable.

I see plenty of misleading and dangerous musings about law on the forum from people who don't know better and frankly don't care to know better; your advice would be to walk away. Mine is to signal to individual that there is clear and present danger in treating the post's content as factual.

You view that response as creating noise. I don't.

[grzm]

I agree that it's important to point out things that are actually harmful. That quick rebuttal needs to include more than a snarky snipe, an insult, or a statement that "No, you're wrong." If that's all that's being added, you may as well just downvote, which is, among other things, an indication that the comment isn't a worthwhile contribution.

To be useful and more than noise, it needs to actually rebut the point in line or pointing to additional resources. HN is pretty good on that point: the community is large enough that it's going to get addressed well. Quality of conversation and quality of information needn't be at odds, and both are addressed in the guidelines.