| > That requires you to assume the audience is both intellectually capable of understanding a complex proposition Being able to explain a complex topic simply is the point. Knowing how to distill the concept to essential points is useful, and if you can't identify the essential points, you probably don't really understand it. > and that it hasn't been sufficiently biased against or indoctrinated against an opposing view. > you would be making a gigantic leap in assuming this automatically means a given audience is going to adequately understand the argument. I didn't say convince, I said explain. Indoctrination is irrelevant. Assume your audience is willing to hear you out, as otherwise all you are doing is yelling at people rather than conversing with people, and that's not acting in good faith. > the assumption that my comments were intended to make a compelling case on the matter outside of the person I was responding to. Yes, the assumption is that you are trying to contribute with your comments, and not just tell someone they are wrong without explanation, as the site guidelines specifically disallow that. > Or perhaps you're one of those people who thinks mass murder of humanity is a good thing because it reduces the human impact on the environment? You seem to be working under the assumption I disagree with you. I don't recall doing anything other than asking you to explain your reasoning. Do you consider that an aggressive argument against your point? |
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html