6 ms·

It was a pure Ad hominem. The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal

by rooshdi 15y ago

It was a pure Ad hominem. The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem We obviously have opposing views on the matter. We've made our arguments, let's just agree to disagree.

ohashi 15y ago
No, we don't agree to disagree, you are wrong. You haven't made arguments with any value. You attacked character and it IS a logical fallacy in this case. >Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). You aren't arguing about what is right or should be done. You are trying to imply I am wrong because of my business interests instead of any real issue. You've ignored solutions which fit within your arguments but you don't like the outcome (like a .startup TLD or using subdomains yourself). You clearly see the value in .com which everyone has recognized but want to monopolize it for yourself under the guise of the greater good. You may be new at this, but because of my history, I've heard each argument hundreds of times, you haven't come up with anything new; thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
- rooshdi 15y ago
  thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders. I appreciate the dialogue. I admit my proposed solution may not be the best at this moment, and does not accommodate all stakeholders, especially domain squatters. It probably is already too late to implement my proposed solution anyway. The domain system in place right now has evolved to such a state that the .com domain has a monopoly over the domain system. The .com has been ingrained in the mindset of most internet users as the end-all be-all due to the unrestriction and initial web registration mind share. This is now being taken advantage of by domainers. They purchase thousands of domains, in the hopes of profiting off of a lucky few. Who gets hurt in all of this? The others. John can't get the name for his blog, Amy sees her cake business's name is taken, Kevin has to buy ICantFindADotComDomainNameSoIBoughtThis.ly. Why? Because domainers aren't thinking of the external effects of their actions and just want to make an easy buck for themselves, manipulating the system to their sole benefit. In short, Pure Greed. This supply shortage of decent .com names is only going to get worse as internet usage increases. My hope is, as this continues, that .com domains become of less value and internet users become more comfortable with alternative TLDs. Summary: Domainers are of no help to society. They must perish. =)
  - ohashi 15y ago
    Yawn. There is no shortage (36^63 combos). Everyone who keeps saying this just thinks they are entitled to the best option available. Again, you ignore the proposed solution which fits your goals but don't like where the result takes you. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself.
    - rooshdi 15y ago
      No, I want a solution that deters domain squatters and is overall better for most people. Maybe, there should just be a cap on how many domains one can own at a time. But domainers would probably complain about that too and make some hypocritical remarks about how this restricts their internet rights, when what they do restricts the internet even worse. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself. I think this statement represents domainers such as you perfectly. May I ask, can you name one benefit domainers provide to people?
      - ohashi 15y ago
        You don't have a better solution, plenty of companies have enormous portfolios of domains. This also wouldn't free up the better names, the best ones would simply be allocated into different management companies, only the marginally profitable ones would be let go. There is no shortage of domains and nobody is restricting anyone's right to a domain. Just because I own a name doesn't mean you've lost a right to domains, you have the exact same rights you always did, the freedom to register a domain that nobody else has purchased. The same position everyone else is in, equally. You have not proposed any objective way to measure and define better. Utility in a real market is hard if not impossible to measure. You think it's your right to have a better domain name? It's not. Welcome to capitalism, where a free market dictates how resources are used. But they are blocking valuable startups you say. If the company is actually viable and successful they can surely purchase it when their utility is greater than the current owner. That's the beauty of capitalism. When someone else's utility is greater than my own, they can purchase my asset and it becomes theirs. Simple. May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken. You ask for the same protections, if not more, for your own assets, but want to take others' protections away. Your arguments, if they can even be considered such, boil down to "you suck, it's unfair someone has the name I rightfully deserve for no apparent reason other than I want it, and we should change the system so I get what I want." Go try that in the nicer area of your city/state/province with a lot of vacation rentals. Tell a homeowner that you need that property more than they do because they have another home and how it's more fair that you get it.

by rooshdi 15y ago

ohashi 15y ago

No, we don't agree to disagree, you are wrong. You haven't made arguments with any value. You attacked character and it IS a logical fallacy in this case. >Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). You aren't arguing about what is right or should be done. You are trying to imply I am wrong because of my business interests instead of any real issue. You've ignored solutions which fit within your arguments but you don't like the outcome (like a .startup TLD or using subdomains yourself). You clearly see the value in .com which everyone has recognized but want to monopolize it for yourself under the guise of the greater good. You may be new at this, but because of my history, I've heard each argument hundreds of times, you haven't come up with anything new; thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.

rooshdi 15y ago
thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders. I appreciate the dialogue. I admit my proposed solution may not be the best at this moment, and does not accommodate all stakeholders, especially domain squatters. It probably is already too late to implement my proposed solution anyway. The domain system in place right now has evolved to such a state that the .com domain has a monopoly over the domain system. The .com has been ingrained in the mindset of most internet users as the end-all be-all due to the unrestriction and initial web registration mind share. This is now being taken advantage of by domainers. They purchase thousands of domains, in the hopes of profiting off of a lucky few. Who gets hurt in all of this? The others. John can't get the name for his blog, Amy sees her cake business's name is taken, Kevin has to buy ICantFindADotComDomainNameSoIBoughtThis.ly. Why? Because domainers aren't thinking of the external effects of their actions and just want to make an easy buck for themselves, manipulating the system to their sole benefit. In short, Pure Greed. This supply shortage of decent .com names is only going to get worse as internet usage increases. My hope is, as this continues, that .com domains become of less value and internet users become more comfortable with alternative TLDs. Summary: Domainers are of no help to society. They must perish. =)
- ohashi 15y ago
  Yawn. There is no shortage (36^63 combos). Everyone who keeps saying this just thinks they are entitled to the best option available. Again, you ignore the proposed solution which fits your goals but don't like where the result takes you. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself.
  - rooshdi 15y ago
    No, I want a solution that deters domain squatters and is overall better for most people. Maybe, there should just be a cap on how many domains one can own at a time. But domainers would probably complain about that too and make some hypocritical remarks about how this restricts their internet rights, when what they do restricts the internet even worse. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself. I think this statement represents domainers such as you perfectly. May I ask, can you name one benefit domainers provide to people?
    - ohashi 15y ago
      You don't have a better solution, plenty of companies have enormous portfolios of domains. This also wouldn't free up the better names, the best ones would simply be allocated into different management companies, only the marginally profitable ones would be let go. There is no shortage of domains and nobody is restricting anyone's right to a domain. Just because I own a name doesn't mean you've lost a right to domains, you have the exact same rights you always did, the freedom to register a domain that nobody else has purchased. The same position everyone else is in, equally. You have not proposed any objective way to measure and define better. Utility in a real market is hard if not impossible to measure. You think it's your right to have a better domain name? It's not. Welcome to capitalism, where a free market dictates how resources are used. But they are blocking valuable startups you say. If the company is actually viable and successful they can surely purchase it when their utility is greater than the current owner. That's the beauty of capitalism. When someone else's utility is greater than my own, they can purchase my asset and it becomes theirs. Simple. May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken. You ask for the same protections, if not more, for your own assets, but want to take others' protections away. Your arguments, if they can even be considered such, boil down to "you suck, it's unfair someone has the name I rightfully deserve for no apparent reason other than I want it, and we should change the system so I get what I want." Go try that in the nicer area of your city/state/province with a lot of vacation rentals. Tell a homeowner that you need that property more than they do because they have another home and how it's more fair that you get it.