On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:25:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > And really, if some logical conclusion is so broken that this brokeness > > has its own name, then everybody should be able to see it.
> This is a nice theory, but in reality one does see people arging > against the person, or their perceived personality, or their > traits, or ascribing motives to them all the time. Except that this is *not* the definition of the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is claiming that a person is bad, *and therefore their arguments are wrong*. Pointing out that someone is being a jerk on the mailing list is *not* an ad hominem fallacy. > These attacks on people, as opposed to discussion of what they > said, is one of the major reasons discussion threads devolve into > unproductive chaos. We should be managing to police discussion better, > and the first step is identifying that such a post has been made. Given the sorts of things you've objected to as "ad hominem attacks" in the past, I definitely don't agree. A number of these have been legitimate complaints about behaviors that distract from or derail technical discussions. Sometimes heated complaints - but no less legitimate for all that. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
