3 ms·

> In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute http://en.wikipedia.o

by anamax 16y ago

> In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute "According to its annual report, the Cato Institute had fiscal year 2008 income of $24 million." In short, the "list of funders" is both ad hominem AND misleading.

dmix 16y ago
You could also look at any big non-profit/think tank and find a similar list of corporate donations.
detcader 16y ago
I understood that; but the fact that these are the type of entities that supported this enterprise is telling enough.
- anamax 16y ago
  > I understood that; You understood that you were making an ad hominem argument that was misleading? > but the fact that these are the type of entities that supported this enterprise is telling enough. I note that you didn't bother to tell us who supported the other side.... Wouldn't that also be "telling enough"?
specialist 16y ago
Huh? I'm pretty sure ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means. And I'm quite certain that his listing of funders could be easily verified. So unless you have information to the contrary, I'd characterize that list as "fact based" vs "misleading".
- anamax 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The accuracy of the list doesn't stop it from being ad hominem. The misleading part is suggesting that $612k of donations is decisive in a budget of over $24M.
  - Bud 16y ago
    Uh, isn't quoting the wiki page on "ad hominem" ONCE in a thread enough? Why do it twice? And do you just run around posting "ad hominem" 100 times a day and downvoting opinions you disagree with? You need to get it straight. If you say something nasty about Cato and I attack YOU personally, that's ad hominem. If you say something about Cato and I attack Cato or some of its supporters and explain why, that's not ad hominem, and no matter how many times you post a wikipedia page, that doesn't change.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > If you say something about Cato and I attack Cato or some of its supporters and explain why, that's not ad hominem It depends on the explanation, specifically whether the attack goes to the substance of their position or, as in this case, "they're bad companies", which makes it ad hominem. > And do you just run around posting "ad hominem" 100 times a day and downvoting opinions you disagree with? It's easy enough to see that I haven't. I also haven't killed any puppies this week. Any other questions?

by anamax 16y ago

dmix 16y ago

You could also look at any big non-profit/think tank and find a similar list of corporate donations.

detcader 16y ago

I understood that; but the fact that these are the type of entities that supported this enterprise is telling enough.

anamax 16y ago
> I understood that; You understood that you were making an ad hominem argument that was misleading? > but the fact that these are the type of entities that supported this enterprise is telling enough. I note that you didn't bother to tell us who supported the other side.... Wouldn't that also be "telling enough"?

specialist 16y ago

Huh? I'm pretty sure ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means. And I'm quite certain that his listing of funders could be easily verified. So unless you have information to the contrary, I'd characterize that list as "fact based" vs "misleading".

anamax 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The accuracy of the list doesn't stop it from being ad hominem. The misleading part is suggesting that $612k of donations is decisive in a budget of over $24M.
- Bud 16y ago
  Uh, isn't quoting the wiki page on "ad hominem" ONCE in a thread enough? Why do it twice? And do you just run around posting "ad hominem" 100 times a day and downvoting opinions you disagree with? You need to get it straight. If you say something nasty about Cato and I attack YOU personally, that's ad hominem. If you say something about Cato and I attack Cato or some of its supporters and explain why, that's not ad hominem, and no matter how many times you post a wikipedia page, that doesn't change.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > If you say something about Cato and I attack Cato or some of its supporters and explain why, that's not ad hominem It depends on the explanation, specifically whether the attack goes to the substance of their position or, as in this case, "they're bad companies", which makes it ad hominem. > And do you just run around posting "ad hominem" 100 times a day and downvoting opinions you disagree with? It's easy enough to see that I haven't. I also haven't killed any puppies this week. Any other questions?