4 ms·
Ad hominem. You should address logical flaws and false statements. And he was critical of Apple in two of the four points, so your premise is false. Edit: Thi
by siglesias 16y ago
Ad hominem. You should address logical flaws and false statements.
And he was critical of Apple in two of the four points, so your premise is false.
Edit: This discussion is also something of a strawman, attacking none of the important arguments made in the article.
The point about what Gruber would say if Microsoft had done this is simply a preemption of an ad hominem attack against himself and it's quite unfortunate that he chose to address it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's fairness in charging 30%, which is what we should all be talking about because it's a very important topic.
Very sorry to see this community of rationalists fall for a refutation of something that's irrelevant to the main discussion.
- sutro 16y agoDoes anyone know of a browser plugin that will automatically eliminate from view any Hacker News comment containing the phrase "ad hominem?" Ad-Hom Block Pro or some such?
- lwhi 16y agoWell said. I die a little inside, every time I read those words (and the inevitable dissection that veers away from the actual content of the discussion, and towards the process of deciding who's 'right'). Debating is good and fine - but (imo) sometimes, concentrating on the minutia isn't as worthwhile as expressing an idea. Discussion can exist without this constant battle to score 'points'.
- Travis 16y agoFunny running into you on this thread, after our earlier discussion. I want to thank you for identifying for me what it is about online discussions that turn me off. You really hit the nail on the head with: "Discussion can exist without this constant battle to score 'points'."
- lwhi 16y agoI've (tragically) spent far too many hours trying to convince various developers that tables aren't good for layout - my motives are sincere - but I admit, it's a conversation that's more than enough to turn anyone off :) I meant what I said about emailing if you'd like some tips about CSS - I had few 'a-ha' moments that really made my life easier.
- mfarris 16y agoAnd add "Strawman" to Ad-Hom Block Pro. The moment I see somebody use that word I think, "This person learned to 'argue' by reading Internet forums. Disregard." Few things grate as much as the self-satisfied "strawman" police.
- glhaynes 16y agoInterestingly, this comment sets up a strawman to represent all people who use the term "strawman"... :)
- _sh 16y agoPlease also add 'begs the question' to Ad-Hominem Block Pro. Your post raises an interesting point, how did all these 'strawman police' become such a bunch of self-satisfied nazis in the first place?
- siglesias 16y agoActually I learned to argue by going to college. And instead of issuing snide remarks about categories of bad arguments, why not tell me why you don't think the label fits, and if it does why you don't feel compelled to address it?
- erikpukinskis 16y agoIf someone makes one, they should call it "No Homi"
- icarus_drowning 16y agoAt least the phrase gives you a point of attack if you disagree. You get to say "it isn't ad hominem because of reason X". I find this far better than responding to arguments that deliberately attempt to obfuscate avenues of attack by couching everything in terms of "opinion" or "I have opinion X, but".
- solutionyogi 16y agoAd Hominem? He said only one thing about 'Gruber' that he is tired of him. Rest of his comment was about Gruber's arguments and non arguments. I didn't see any Ad Hominem attack in the original comment. And how is Gruber's overall argument right if he is critical of Apple in two of the four points? How does that even make sense?
- siglesias 16y ago>>I used to be a big fan of Gruber, but I'm getting increasingly tired of his "defend Apple at all costs" mentality. Contains a claim that Gruber's mentality is to defend Apple at all costs. Since Gruber does not do this in the post, it is a false claim. This claim is used to lend credence to the idea that Gruber is in fact misrepresenting his feelings about Microsoft since the situation presented would force Gruber, with the presumption that he defends Apple at all costs, to say otherwise than what he said he would say. Except that the premise is false. All of this makes you wonder why OP would single out this point to begin with since it's the least salient to the thrust of the article. This makes OP's point something of a straw man and character attack.