4 ms·
which is bs, since losing a domain also makes you lose all the thousands of links going to it...would he expect the same of Google? After all, they also own Goo
by vaksel 15y ago
which is bs, since losing a domain also makes you lose all the thousands of links going to it...would he expect the same of Google? After all, they also own Google.org, so they can just let everyone know to go there instead.
why am I not surprised that the judge is 70 years old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_A._Crotty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_A._Crotty
- eli 15y agoNo reason to go ad hominem on the judge. Seems like it's more a disagreement on the legal definition of "substantial"
- mikeryan 15y agoad hominem is not always a logical fallacy, the judge's age may very well be relevant.
- vaksel 15y agoa more web savvy judge would have never made such a comment.
- tptacek 15y agoThe only evidence you have to assert that the judge isn't "web-savvy" is his age. Creepy! A comment this dumb is evidence for how toxic the whole thread is, so let's all stop debating what is and isn't "ad hominem" and move on.
- jemfinch 15y agoAd Hominem is a logical fallacy. Unless the OP was saying "The judge is wrong because he's seventy years old" he was not committing ad hominem, just commenting on a (possibly irrelevant) quality of the judge.
- catshirt 15y agothat's exactly what he was saying.
- jemfinch 15y agoNo, he's looking at causality, not logical entailment. He's not saying the judge is old, therefore he must be wrong on Internet matters; he's saying that the judge being old is likely an influential cause of his being wrong on Internet matters. Ad Hominem only refers to fallacy of using personal qualities to present logical arguments; it has nothing to do with the use of personal qualities to ascertain causality.
- starwed 15y agoNope. He argued that the judge was wrong, and then suggested that it was the judge's age that caused him to make an error. What he didn't do is to use the judge's age in support of the first argument -- that would have been ad hominem. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- catshirt 15y agohe did: "[suggest] that it was the judge's age that caused him to make an error" he didnt: "[use] the judge's age in support of the first argument" forgive me; perhaps you could clarify the difference?
- Dylan16807 15y agoIt was a side note and not part of the argument.