[bigyabai]

On the hierarchy of disagreement, attacking the character of either side is the lowest form of intelligent commentary you can make: https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

> Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?

If non-sequiturs are your best argument, then yes, you you have nothing to contribute by participating in good-faith speculation. Iranian child marriages do not reframe the "Tail that Wags the Dog" scenario in Washington. It's textbook whataboutism that you failed to elevate into meaningful commentary, making you look suspiciously disengaged.

[cnd78A]

Iranian child marriages do not reframe

Israel too to be fair "They're 15, Married With Children: Inside an Israeli Hasidic Cult's Code of Silence" (the gov and the population knows it, but it's ok) : https://archive.is/v9Amc#selection-699.0-699.83

[_DeadFred_]

I'm not seeing where they rent out their children via temporarily marriages as the Shia mullahs in Iran have given religious sanction/approval/doctrine of or like the similar behaviors highlighted in the Epstein files. Can you help me find that bit that relates to what I was speaking to?

That said allowing child brides is horrific, I agree. Especially when it seems to be accepted by the highest levels of a religion or even worse when it's practiced by a religions leaders.

[bigyabai]

The Israeli government gives implicit immunity to pedophiles by refusing to compile a state-funded sexual abuse registry, and their leadership (eg. Netanyahu) blocks investigation of credible rape accusations. I would be careful pointing towards Israel as a moral high ground in this discussion.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/tens-of-thousands-of-pedop...

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-war-palestinians-pris...

[_DeadFred_]

Where did I point towards Israel as a moral high ground? Israel was randomly injected in a discussion about Epstein/Iranian leadership government/religious leadership. Israel doesn't even come into this discussion about not Israel, and wasn't brought in as a moral point by me.

I agreed it is immoral when such actions occur, and is especially immoral/heinous when religious groups/religious figures are involved in sanctifying/justifying child marriage. I think we both agree a religious group looses it's legitimacy when it engages in defending such behavior just because it was/is done by the religious groups members/leaders and the they claim 'it's actually ok because...' trying to justify such horrific behavior.

The closest I come is in trying to understand Israel's relevance to my point and the discussion. There are many many countries that can and should be called out, but they aren't relevant to a discussion about Trump/Epstein/Iran. "I'm not seeing where they rent out their children via temporarily marriages as the Shia mullahs in Iran have given religious sanction/approval/doctrine of or like the similar behaviors highlighted in the Epstein files. Can you help me find that bit that relates to what I was speaking to?"

[bigyabai]

> Israel was randomly injected in a discussion about Epstein/Iranian leadership

Israel is not a non-sequitur in the discussion of the Epstein files or attacks on Iranian leadership.

[_DeadFred_]

I simply stated "You'd think these Epstein file guys would be on better terms with a country whose religious and political leaders sanctify that kind of behavior, not going to war with them.". Seems like a reasonable comment. They are all awful people.

Paul Graham is saying you should not call people you are in a discussion with names. If I called OP names your link would fit. Calling out a horrific regime that murders their people and rents out children under the sanction of their religious leaders is not that.

Calling the person you are in a discussion with names = bad. Call the subject of the discussion bad, when they legitimately are horrific, is normal discussion. Trump is awful. The Islamic Republic is awful. Both of those are normal and acceptable things to state in a discussion. You DeadFred are a <xyz negative statement>, not normal or acceptable.

However Hacker New's ACTUAL guidelines state reguarding comments "Converse curiously; don't cross-examine." which your post seems to explicitly violate. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[tremon]

Paul Graham is saying you should not call people you are in a discussion with names

Only if you don't care to read past bullet point 1. If you had cared enough to read at least one paragraph further, you would have found:

> DH1. Ad Hominem.

> An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. [..] It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though

[_DeadFred_]

Another ad hominem in this thread, making they same type of call out I did (calling out abhorrent abuse) you might want call out similarly to how you did me:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48199184 "The same UN that Pedophile Trump denounced as a "feckless institution"" - tremon

> DH1. Ad Hominem.

> An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. [..] It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though

Though this use appears to also being used as name calling in addition to just being used as an ad hominem.

>DH0. Name-calling.

>This is the lowest form of disagreement

Though again PG was specifically referring to situations where people within a discussion use this sort of discourse aimed at other people in the discussion whom they disagree with.

[bigyabai]

The original comment did have substance in addition to name-calling. Your response was purely ad-hominem, which specifically made you look entirely detatched from the actual conversation taking place (even if you matched their tone).

The question of "why would you post this" still hangs high above your comment. It mostly seems like you're concerned about the optics of this conflict and not any of the real-world consequences.

[_DeadFred_]

I responded to bigyabai phrase of "On the hierarchy of disagreement, attacking the character of either side". Which I did not do. I did not go after someone I disagreed with's in the discussions character. I simply said 'you would think both sides monsters would be on friendlier terms with each other'. Responding with a wall of text relating to the entirety of the PG article would have been odd. I addressed the point made in the comment I replied to.

From the article on ad homimen "Saying that an author lacks" again, I never went after the other posters here (until later in this reply in order to productively highlight points brought up by others). PGs article is about responding to posts and how speak civilly (the posters here being 'the author' he is referring to). I see quite a few posts replying to me speaking to me specifically contrary to the entire point of the PG article. For example "Only if you don't care to read past bullet point 1. If you had cared enough to read" of your own post.

But to your point, the original comment by spiderfarmer that I responded to initially must really trigger your 'ad hominem attack' concerns:

" the moronic US, their feeble leader as well as their utterly corrupt and incompetent politicians. A toxic mix of staggering arrogance, moral bankruptcy, a lack of strategic thinking, non-existing historical awareness and a desperate need to divert attention because of the Epstein files.

Try debating a MAGA supporter. The stupidity is astounding."