Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

When the person making the argument has a history of acting in bad faith, that's relevant to the argument.


sort by: page size:

The stuff the person is talking about is a bad faith argument.

The person you're talking to is arguing in bad faith.

This is a bad faith argument.

This is a bad faith argument

It's called arguing in bad faith

In those situations the adage that arguing against bad faith arguments is self defeating. To outside observers it just makes the bad faith arguments look credible.

If you're accusing others of acting in bad faith you need to substantiate that. With a proper argument. Otherwise you're not acting in good faith yourself.

They would at worse be arguing in bad faith. But their argument is right or wrong because of its bases and assumptions, not based on who's saying the words

dang, this is a bad faith argument.

aka arguing in bad faith.

Bad faith arguments are just logically valid arguments with which you happen to disagree.

You're arguing in bad faith.

What do you call a bad faith argument adopted by somebody in good faith?

This may be the best example I've seen on the internet of a bad faith argument.

This is just arguing in bad faith.

I don't think calling out the argument as in bad faith is justified or particularly helpful.

This was an interesting discussion - allegations of bad faith ruin the discussion and make you look like you are unable to tolerate different interpretations of the facts.


It would demonstrate arguing in bad faith, certainly.

It’s a bad faith argument to undermine precedent.

This is a bad faith argument. If you want to be taken seriously at least try to use good faith.
next

Legal | privacy