8 ms·

As of about 6:50 PM EDT, this ad hominem attack on the article's author has almost as many upvotes (56) as every other top-level comment on this thread combined

by jad 16y ago

As of about 6:50 PM EDT, this ad hominem attack on the article's author has almost as many upvotes (56) as every other top-level comment on this thread combined (67). Sad.

baddox 16y ago
As of 6:05 PM Central time, at least three people have used the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly. Unless flyt was attempting to discredit Gruber's premise (which I don't think is the case), the argument is not ad hominem.
- raganwald 16y ago
  It all depends. Sometimes these attacks on the character or reputation of the argument are indirect ad hominem arguments. Consider a fictitious debate between a Christian and a Muslim politician about whether or not to strip Americans of even more civil liberties. The Christian candidate listens to the Muslim candidate make a point, then says loudly and clearly, "Folks, he's a Muslim!" He doesn't say "And therefore he's wrong," but nevertheless it is rhetorical device for discrediting his opponent and getting the audience to ignore his point. Wikipedia calls this Ad hominem abuse: Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominem http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominem
  - baddox 16y ago
    It sounds like you are suggesting that flyt thinks that Color's funding has nothing to do with the potential for user data mining, and thus disagrees with Gruber and much of the Hacker News community. I think you are wrong.
- ugh 16y ago
  You are correct but it is still sad to see that this irrelevant attack is so popular. How is this comment interesting? It’s not about what Gruber is discussing, it just attacks and doesn’t even provide evidence for its assumption. Such comments are not uncommon and I hate them with a passion. A snide, short remark, picking up a popular sentiment without any attempt of providing evidence for the same (“The New York Times has a liberal bias anyway.” – “Fox News is filled with fascists!”) — that’s just spam as far as I’m concerned. Whether or not services where the user is the product can be valuable for the same is a very interesting question and you could write 1,000 word essays about it — but instead this crap made it all the way to the top.
  - lukeschlather 16y ago
    The article in question is a snide, short remark. I don't know why anyone would come to this thread expecting reasoned discourse.
    - ugh 16y ago
      I don’t think HN should aspire to have comments of merely equal quality to the source material. Why exactly do you think that subpar articles must automatically lead to bad discussions? That’s far from a given for me. The topic – users as products – is certainly interesting and touches on a whole host of issues that are traditional HN lore, from Google’s business model to startup monetization. As I said, eloquent 1,000 word essays that emphatically disagree with Gruber’s position are certainly possible. Instead there’s spam.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  Are you suggesting that disparaging the author without attempting to discredit their argument is somehow better? I ask because I'm really not understanding what drives your pedantry or the apparently resounding agreement with it that voting readers have expressed. Frankly, the Hacker News I want to read is one where the top comment is not a personal attack, regardless of whether people agree on whether it qualifies as ad hominem argument.
  - neutronicus 16y ago
    100% agree with you. An "irrelevant personal attack" and an argument that relies on one are equally undesirable to me.
  - baddox 16y ago
    I'm only suggesting that disparaging the author alone doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument.
- coderdude 16y ago
  It's a popular phrase around here. It seems like people can barely contain the urge to play the "ad hominem" card. It's regurgitated all the time on HN. Same with: -"Straw man" -"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" -"A bad workman blames his tools" (this one is on the rise) I'm sure there are many others I'm missing. Even HN has memes.
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    "The plural of anecdote is not data" is another.
  - jarin 16y ago
    - Dunning-Kreuger Effect
dpe82 16y ago
So does that mean that the comment has social proof and is thus more likely to be valuable? Discuss.

by jad 16y ago

As of about 6:50 PM EDT, this ad hominem attack on the article's author has almost as many upvotes (56) as every other top-level comment on this thread combined (67). Sad.

baddox 16y ago

As of 6:05 PM Central time, at least three people have used the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly. Unless flyt was attempting to discredit Gruber's premise (which I don't think is the case), the argument is not ad hominem.

raganwald 16y ago
It all depends. Sometimes these attacks on the character or reputation of the argument are indirect ad hominem arguments. Consider a fictitious debate between a Christian and a Muslim politician about whether or not to strip Americans of even more civil liberties. The Christian candidate listens to the Muslim candidate make a point, then says loudly and clearly, "Folks, he's a Muslim!" He doesn't say "And therefore he's wrong," but nevertheless it is rhetorical device for discrediting his opponent and getting the audience to ignore his point. Wikipedia calls this Ad hominem abuse: Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominem http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominem
- baddox 16y ago
  It sounds like you are suggesting that flyt thinks that Color's funding has nothing to do with the potential for user data mining, and thus disagrees with Gruber and much of the Hacker News community. I think you are wrong.
ugh 16y ago
You are correct but it is still sad to see that this irrelevant attack is so popular. How is this comment interesting? It’s not about what Gruber is discussing, it just attacks and doesn’t even provide evidence for its assumption. Such comments are not uncommon and I hate them with a passion. A snide, short remark, picking up a popular sentiment without any attempt of providing evidence for the same (“The New York Times has a liberal bias anyway.” – “Fox News is filled with fascists!”) — that’s just spam as far as I’m concerned. Whether or not services where the user is the product can be valuable for the same is a very interesting question and you could write 1,000 word essays about it — but instead this crap made it all the way to the top.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  The article in question is a snide, short remark. I don't know why anyone would come to this thread expecting reasoned discourse.
  - ugh 16y ago
    I don’t think HN should aspire to have comments of merely equal quality to the source material. Why exactly do you think that subpar articles must automatically lead to bad discussions? That’s far from a given for me. The topic – users as products – is certainly interesting and touches on a whole host of issues that are traditional HN lore, from Google’s business model to startup monetization. As I said, eloquent 1,000 word essays that emphatically disagree with Gruber’s position are certainly possible. Instead there’s spam.
GHFigs 16y ago
Are you suggesting that disparaging the author without attempting to discredit their argument is somehow better? I ask because I'm really not understanding what drives your pedantry or the apparently resounding agreement with it that voting readers have expressed. Frankly, the Hacker News I want to read is one where the top comment is not a personal attack, regardless of whether people agree on whether it qualifies as ad hominem argument.
- neutronicus 16y ago
  100% agree with you. An "irrelevant personal attack" and an argument that relies on one are equally undesirable to me.
- baddox 16y ago
  I'm only suggesting that disparaging the author alone doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument.
coderdude 16y ago
It's a popular phrase around here. It seems like people can barely contain the urge to play the "ad hominem" card. It's regurgitated all the time on HN. Same with: -"Straw man" -"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" -"A bad workman blames his tools" (this one is on the rise) I'm sure there are many others I'm missing. Even HN has memes.
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  "The plural of anecdote is not data" is another.
- jarin 16y ago
  - Dunning-Kreuger Effect

dpe82 16y ago

So does that mean that the comment has social proof and is thus more likely to be valuable? Discuss.