| Your comment has a lot of misunderstandings, but here's the biggest one: > Then by that yardstick, isn't the comment I was replying too also in bad faith, just like I pointed out initially? No, it isn't. First, it's completely invalid to say "by that yardstick" - you're comparing completely different things that have no bearing on each other. Second, no, there's zero evidence that the comment you replied to was in bad faith. The definition of a bad faith argument is one that in inauthentic, and that the argument-maker doesn't actually believe in themselves. Factually, there's no evidence to support your accusation that that comment by @butlike was in bad faith - they didn't make any self-contradictory statements in their comment, nor did they post a single other comment in that whole thread, nor did they say that would indicate that they were acting anything but genuinely. And, factually, you were breaking the guidelines by assuming bad faith about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44240808. When challenged on it in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44244578, you said: > I assumed good faith, but then I used critical thinking and decided it's in bad faith then explained why. You don't need to agree with me on this. This has three falsehoods in it. First, you did not assume good faith - you assumed bad faith, because there was zero evidence to support the idea that it was in bad faith. Second, you didn't use critical thinking - again, because there was no evidence to support that belief. Third, you did not explain why the comment was in bad faith - you explained why you disagreed with it, indicating that you don't understand the difference between disagreeing with someone's statements, and them being in bad faith (which is further reinforced in the above when you say "And I replied that's in bad faith since the alternative to Android 16 shitty UI is not going back to Android 2 to make Android 16 look good" - no, that's literally not what "bad faith" means). Finally, more generally, beyond the falsehoods and fallacies that you've been making, you're also acting extremely abrasively, in ways that break the guidelines and that antagonize other users. The theme of HN is intellectual curiosity. The way that you've been acting is the exact opposite of that. |