Oh, you would? How dare everyone on the internet not cater to your expectations.
Someone from the community shared a story of personal struggle. They didn't hide behind a pseudonym, and it was probably a hard decision for them. They also, did in hopes it would help someone else.
They might not have used precise definitions or scientifically correct terms but they were honest and civil and even after you insulted them.
No matter how hard their struggle is, it's akin to linking vaccines to autism - no amount of personal pain overrides factual inaccuracy.
It's an extremely important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out, in a polite way, but clearly and forcefully.
This is akin to 'balancing' a debate about evolution by having an evolutionary biologist there and a doctor of theology there. Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.
One of the things I love about HN is that incorrect opinions are quickly corrected by people in the know, often with providing proper citations. However, what is quite often missing, is civility. Moreover, in this case one should be exceptionally polite, given the very personal nature of the OP's post and the courage to attach his name to his writing.
I recommend everyone (myself included) to re-read "How to Win Friends and Influence People", even if they don't think they have a problem with being polite. I keep re-reading this book and everytime I do I see something more to correct (it has already heavily influenced the way I write e-mails to people).
> Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.
The correct answer in this case doesn't really matter for the main point if we are talking about the dopamine. Which, from what I see is the clearly factually incorrect statement. Latching unnecessarily unto inconsequential details and derailing the conversion is also called trolling and bullying and will get the message downvoted or flagged.
> They were incorrect on a side detail (...)
[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grahams_Hierarchy_of_Disag...
And nobody claimed that it does. They simply pointed out that it's kinda weak to be an asshole in response; the fact the the asshole had a point doesn't make them not an asshole "Yeah but he's right". That's great, but not the point, and was also mentioned by the very people criticizing the asshole for being one. All further responses to that just went in circles, attacking strawmen like you just did.
Also, politeness and civility isn't the same as false amiability. You can (and should) give firm rebuttals in a civil way. There's nothing false about it.
I don't want to hang out at a place where people are yelling, even if they aren't yelling at me.
Every minute spent trying to get anything back is a minute you will never have back.