[ProblemFactory]

One of the core points of the article and the parent comment is that many instances of "muddled thinking" are actually mis-communication due to the nuances of real human language, or interpreting sentences too literally.

A sentence "all skeptics are assholes" does not mean that the speaker literally asserts that the conditional statement "you are a skeptic → you are an asshole" is true. Someone saying "you are an idiot" to me does not mean that they literally assert that I have been medically diagnosed with IQ less than 30. In both cases, it is more likely that the true meaning of the sentence is an subjective expression of frustration at some behaviour they experienced.

There is no useful place for pointing out logical fallacies by name in a real discussion among people. Instead of rejecting "arguments", a good discussion requires asking questions to understand each others' viewpoints, empathising with each others' concerns, trying to convince the other party of your viewpoints in a persuasive way, and being open to changing your own viewpoint. Pointing out a logical fallacy by name will not persuade the other party, any other readers/listeners, nor help you learn anything about their actual views.

If somebody says "you are an idiot", the interesting topics of discussion are: what did I do, and whether what I did was wrong. Debating the logical truth of the literal sentence is completely pointless, because the literal interpretation of the sentence is wrong.

[EvanKelly]

I agree with your points, but since this discussion has tended towards behavior on internet forums (like HN) the difference between spoken conversation and published written word come into play.

I'm guilty of not thinking before I speak most of the time, but when I post on HN or Reddit, or even Facebook, I take care to say what I mean. On the otherhand, interpretation of intent and meaning can be much more difficult from written word, especially when you don't have a prior relationship with your conversation partner.