Comments inline. On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:57:49 PM UTC+1, morten hattesen wrote:
> Reiner, > > How would you qualify Clay's posting containing these argument fragments? > > - *This is the most childish, baseless attack I've ever read.* > > A harsh commentary, but as it is commenting on the tone of the article and not the content of the article, it's on point. You may not agree with it, and it's harsh, and it lacks context, but it has nothing to do with Ad Hominem. > > - *This is garbage* > > In context, he is calling the article 'garbage' because it complains about performance of Fork/Join without having any benchmarking in it, which indeed seems quite ludicrous to me. 'garbage' is perhaps strong language, but it is the conclusion of commentary going to the heart of the piece, and thus, has nothing whatsoever to do with an Ad Hominem attack. It's entirely on point, even; it's insulting the article __based on an on-point line of reasoning__ and that is perhaps mean, but not logically fallacious. > > - *All attack and insults and Java sucks* > > From the few things I have read of OP, this is accurate. It goes to the very point of Clay's argument, in fact! Usage of insulting words do not imply insult, nor do they imply a logical fallacy. > > - *This is just hateful trolling of the laziest and worst kind.* > > There is a potential implication here that, because it is hateful and lazy trolling, that the article is not worth your time. This is dangerously close to the ground of Ad Hominem but still not a logical fallacy. If it went as far as: The arguments carried forth in the article are false because its author is a troll", THAT would be an ad hominem attack. The argument here is slightly different: "Your time is limited and based on the tone of the article, the way the author proliferates the article, and the reputation of the author, I advise you not to read it." This is not an Ad Hominem attack. > > - *a big flaming pile of dung* > > You are now quoting Clay out of context; Clay is paraphrasing the article, and is doing so more or less accurately. > > - *hateful insults* > > How is that an ad hominem? Clay states that he considers the content of the original article to be 'hateful insults towards java'. If you read into it that: "... and I am implying that the arguments set forth in it are wrong because the author is clearly a jackass, based on the fact that he writes hateful insults", then it would be an ad hominem attack, but what I take away from this line of thought is: "... and I am implying that putting criticism in the form of hateful insults is not sufficiently constructive to be worth investing time into", which isn't ad hominem. > > - *you are trolling in the worst, laziest, and most disgusting way* > > At this point Clay is indeed guilty of engaging in the use of flowery but in the end vapid hyperbole in an attempt to score some bonus points. This isn't the Ad Hominem logical fallacy but the logical fallacy of Hyperbole. This isn't a Socratic arena, it's an internet forum. Reaches for hyperbole, especially easily identifiable hyperbole like this, is simply Clay underscoring his opinions. It's a long way of writing, "No REALLY. I mean it!" > > - *deeply embarrassed for posting this kind of thing* > > What's logically fallacious about this statement? The fact that your feelings are hurt (or the OP's feelings are hurt) has nothing to do with logical fallacies, though part of the very point of Clay is that doing so is not conducive to constructive criticism. In that sense, Clay's own post isn't constructive either, but then he's perhaps just trying to talk in a language familiar to the original author. Insulting the poster (ad hominem) for insulting Java 8 Lambda implentation. > > This in a nutshell is where you are just plain wrong. Insulting people is not the same as 'ad hominem'. The essence of ad hominem is very very simple: "This argument is wrong because the person or people that support this argument are stupid / ugly / known poopyheads / anything else that is not material to the argument at hand". THAT IS IT. If I say: "Jack's suggestion that the moon is made of cheese is wrong because we have moon rocks that clearly show otherwise. Also, comet impacts on the moon would have behaved quite differently if it was. I furthermore posit that Jack is a giant idiot for even proposing this argument, and he should be ridiculed". Then I did NOT engage in an ad hominem attack. I did insult jack, though. This, however: "Jane's argument that X is a prettier letter than Y is false. She's very pretty and I don't trust pretty people, and I've seen her hang out with X a lot, therefore I conclude her argument couldn't possibly be correct." This is an ad hominem attack but not an insult. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
