4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThat'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.