4 ms·

Even if so, I'd rather move beyond the Ad hominem.

dimino 10y ago
It's not an ad hominem, because the article isn't making an argument, and someone questioning his motives isn't saying he's wrong because of his motives.
- further_tech 10y ago
  The article is making an argument (Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons) and, regardless of the author's motives or background, I analyze his arguments. Claiming "isn't saying he's wrong because of his motives" is just reinforcing what I'm trying to say.
  - ryporter 10y ago
    The author defends Gawker by stating, "But at least Gawker did this openly." If he is working for Gawker, that is very relevant to his argument.
  - dimino 10y ago
    That's not an argument, that's a statement. If it were an argument (in the sense that a fallacy like ad hominem applies), he would have a set of premises and a conclusion. Also, the comment we're talking about would have to directly state, "BECAUSE he has ties to Gawker, he is THEREFORE wrong" which is not at all what the above comment is saying. Furthermore, no one is claiming the article is wrong because the author has ties to Gawker. The claim isn't, "Because the author has ties to Gawker, he is therefore wrong", the claim is, "Because he has ties to Gawker, his premises may be biased." Also, you can't analyze the author's "arguments" because he doesn't provide one.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
Pointing out that a source is likely not impartial because they are a professional PR specialist is hardly an ad hominem. From the author's page: "Keith uses the power of strategic communications along with his experience as a lawyer and company co-founder to secure maximum leverage for his clients. His individual and team recognitions include the PR News Award for Outstanding Media Exposure (Business Development); The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences Webby Award Official Honoree; and the American Bar Association Award of Excellence (for writing). Keith is based in New York City." Granted, correlation is not causation and it's theoretically possible for the good Mr. Emmer to have a long standing interest in journalistic freedom. (A cursory Googling of his name and the obvious keywords shows no evidence of such history.) But would anyone here care to bet much money on it?
- drumdance 10y ago
  In fairness, his opinion is probably consistent with the views of the editors at Reuters.
- evanpw 10y ago
  Ad hominem is when "an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." [1]. This clearly seems to fit. Ad hominem is not always a fallacy: if there were some new facts presented, or if the argument was so complicated that you couldn't evaluate its validity yourself (like happens often in science and other technical fields), then the source of the argument would be relevant. Neither of those is true in this case. The article's argument isn't very convincing to me on its own merits, but I don't see how it's made worse by the fact that the author may have been paid to write it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
saint_fiasco 10y ago
Ad hominem isn't always irrelevant. You would expect a journalist to defend an organization that employs many journalists and it's useful to keep that into account, as it reduces the ratio between the (conditional probability that the journalist will argue for that position given that the position is true) and (conditional probability that the journalist will argue for that position given that the position is false).

It's not an ad hominem, because the article isn't making an argument, and someone questioning his motives isn't saying he's wrong because of his motives.

further_tech 10y ago
The article is making an argument (Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons) and, regardless of the author's motives or background, I analyze his arguments. Claiming "isn't saying he's wrong because of his motives" is just reinforcing what I'm trying to say.
- ryporter 10y ago
  The author defends Gawker by stating, "But at least Gawker did this openly." If he is working for Gawker, that is very relevant to his argument.
- dimino 10y ago
  That's not an argument, that's a statement. If it were an argument (in the sense that a fallacy like ad hominem applies), he would have a set of premises and a conclusion. Also, the comment we're talking about would have to directly state, "BECAUSE he has ties to Gawker, he is THEREFORE wrong" which is not at all what the above comment is saying. Furthermore, no one is claiming the article is wrong because the author has ties to Gawker. The claim isn't, "Because the author has ties to Gawker, he is therefore wrong", the claim is, "Because he has ties to Gawker, his premises may be biased." Also, you can't analyze the author's "arguments" because he doesn't provide one.

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago

Pointing out that a source is likely not impartial because they are a professional PR specialist is hardly an ad hominem. From the author's page: "Keith uses the power of strategic communications along with his experience as a lawyer and company co-founder to secure maximum leverage for his clients. His individual and team recognitions include the PR News Award for Outstanding Media Exposure (Business Development); The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences Webby Award Official Honoree; and the American Bar Association Award of Excellence (for writing). Keith is based in New York City." Granted, correlation is not causation and it's theoretically possible for the good Mr. Emmer to have a long standing interest in journalistic freedom. (A cursory Googling of his name and the obvious keywords shows no evidence of such history.) But would anyone here care to bet much money on it?

drumdance 10y ago
In fairness, his opinion is probably consistent with the views of the editors at Reuters.
evanpw 10y ago
Ad hominem is when "an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." [1]. This clearly seems to fit. Ad hominem is not always a fallacy: if there were some new facts presented, or if the argument was so complicated that you couldn't evaluate its validity yourself (like happens often in science and other technical fields), then the source of the argument would be relevant. Neither of those is true in this case. The article's argument isn't very convincing to me on its own merits, but I don't see how it's made worse by the fact that the author may have been paid to write it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

saint_fiasco 10y ago

Ad hominem isn't always irrelevant. You would expect a journalist to defend an organization that employs many journalists and it's useful to keep that into account, as it reduces the ratio between the (conditional probability that the journalist will argue for that position given that the position is true) and (conditional probability that the journalist will argue for that position given that the position is false).