Ooh, slick rhetorical moves you just executed. You couched your comment in the jargon of formal logic, and in doing so situated the parent under a convenient ad-hoc pseudo-formalization where you could easily position them as a raving illogical, and dismiss most of what they wrote through low-effort counterexamples. Mathematical certainty on your side, you make a polite concession to the parent, reinforcing your claim to reason and sealing the parent's dismissal in the eyes of any observer.

I claim that is trivial (albeit obnoxious) to dismiss most informal utterances in this way. This is because, for starters, informal language is complex and enthymeme in the extreme -- we don't tend to articulate every e.g. assumption and premise and contextual relation up front in every utterance. Language is messy because the concepts under discussion are complex and messy, and vibes are powerful tools for wrangling that complexity and getting at meaning.

For example: my interpretation of what the parent wrote was something like "the 'making stupid mistakes' line is a strong signal of neurodivergence, and unfortunately is harsh and self-critical. so they should be weary of comments on HN, since there is a strong likelihood of being led down an unhelpful path that might aggravate this self-talk, especially given the harsh self-talk and what we know about the subcultures that frequent this place, which are not a uniform random sample of humanity".

Speaking of unarticulated contextual relations, "I often make careless mistakes" is literally in the DSM-V as a diagnostic criterion for ADHD.

Thank you for this reply. I thought the parent comment was blunt, and perhaps honest. But perhaps it could have added some positive and constructive commentary rather than saying what not to do. I hardly think these things are so binary anyways.