3 ms·
In the blog post, a non-profit organisation bankrolled by ads company A, criticizes ad targeting practices of ads company B, which is a competitor of ads compan
by mastazi 5y ago
In the blog post, a non-profit organisation bankrolled by ads company A, criticizes ad targeting practices of ads company B, which is a competitor of ads company A.
Imagine if Ford bankrolled a consumer association which then proceeded to publicly criticize aspects of General Motors cars, while at the same time wanting to appear super partes. Wouldn't people be allowed to criticise that?
> Nothing of what you write actually refutes the argument in the blog post.
I'm not refuting the merit I'm refuting the fact that Mozilla is writing that post as opposed to e.g. the EFF
> more likely an ad hominem
what are you talking about? Mozilla is an organisation not an individual LOL
- cycomanic 5y ago>> more likely an ad hominem >what are you talking about? Mozilla is an organisation not an individual LOL That does not change the fact that you are attacking the entity that is making the argument not the argument, which is a classic ad hominem. The nature of the entity making the argument is completely irrelevant.
- mastazi 5y agoI don’t think that’s what ad hominem means, you don’t have to trust my words on that, just open a Latin dictionary and look for the entry “homo, hominis”. And by the way, yes I am attacking the entity not the argument, you are right about that.
- chalst 5y agoAd hominem is an idiom: you cannot infer the meaning of an idiom from the composition of its words. A counterargument is ad hominem if it rests on what it says about the arguer, not the content of the argument. It's not always a fallacy, but it is a danger sign for bad argument.
- hunterslaptop 5y ago> you are attacking the entity that is making the argument not the argument it's a case of conflict of interest, only the entity counts not the argument.