3 ms·
Your comment does not address the contents of the proposed legislative changes, at all -- as such it is a sad example of resorting to the fallacy of ad hominem.
by mkempe 8y ago
Your comment does not address the contents of the proposed legislative changes, at all -- as such it is a sad example of resorting to the fallacy of ad hominem.
- dv_dt 8y agoWell first, I did not give a position regarding the article just information - so there is no argument to be an ad hom. fallacy. Second, given the Koch's long history and extensive network of supported organizations, many people can come to their own conclusions about the motivations of past and current actions in the context of the currently posted article. Taking more information of past actions into context is also not an ad hominem attack.
- mkempe 8y agoThe correct approach to ideas and legislation is to argue the substance, not to resort to ad hominems. "Because Koch" is as invalid as "Because Soros".
- Hnrobert42 8y agoYeah but it’s not invalid. The Koch brothers and Soros have well established positions. Any attacks leveled here are not on the person but on their positions.
- mkempe 8y agoNo fallacies are valid methods of logic or argumentation. Ad hominem is a fallacy.
- Hnrobert42 8y agoOk. What is the name of the fallacy where one misinterprets an argument as a fallacy and then declares victory?
- mkempe 8y agoSophistry? Are you looking to name a personal hobby? It's really sad that you and several others here are only interested in yelling "Koch". These proposed changes to patent law have some good and what I consider some bad aspects, all worthy of actual argumentation. Engaging in ad hominems is ridiculous; doing it deliberately is at best puerile; the only achievement is to prevent purposeful debate (and paint yourselves as unworthy of reasonable conversation). Think! The EFF does not get results by engaging in ad hominems.