On 09/04/2013 11:26 AM, Joakim wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:34:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.
That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.
By whom? [...]
When communication fails, there is usually not a single side responsible
for it. (Unless one side is trolling. Trolls are typically anonymous.)
They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad,
just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments to
try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to carve out
a place for open source. You may agree with their conclusion and
therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial observer wouldn't.
"Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks, even if
that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion topic. "Any"
impartial observer would interpret those as lack of a well-reasoned
argument and decide to spend his time impartially observing something
more interesting.
I call it like I see it.
Great.
An impartial observer can determine if what
you call "personal attacks," more like labeling of the usually silly or
wrong tenor of their arguments
and what kind of person generally makes such dumb arguments, are accurate.
How? Accuracy of conclusions of fallacious reasoning is mostly
incidental. Consider googling "ad hominem", "association fallacy" and
"fallacy of irrelevance".
If you want to take a long thread full of arguments about the topic
and pick out a little name-calling
and then run away, clearly the argument is lost on you.
Frankly, I'm unimpressed. It's you who picked out the name-calling
instead of arguments when summarizing the past discussion. In case any
valuable arguments were part of that discussion then I'd advise to pick
out those instead and put them in a coherent form.
On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 00:25:30 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 16:33:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread. The OSS zealots
repeatedly make arguments that are wrong, irrelevant, and worst, just
completely out of left field. This is a common pathology when you
have decided on your conclusion and are arguing backwards from it:
your arguments don't make any sense and come out of left field.
They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad,
just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments
to try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to
carve out a place for open source. You may agree with their
conclusion and therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial
observer wouldn't.
You seem confused by the difference between saying something and
providing conclusive evidence.
That thread _is_ conclusive evidence. If you think otherwise, you are
deeply confused.
(Please do not mess up the threading.)
Well, if this kind of simply-minded pseudo-reasoning is to find
resonance, it has to be targeted at a less critical audience.
