4 ms·

First of all, your argument is pure ad hominem. You didn't give any explanation to how Koch funding Second, Cato is not controlled by the Koch brothers. They w

First of all, your argument is pure ad hominem. You didn't give any explanation to how Koch funding Second, Cato is not controlled by the Koch brothers. They were involved with the founding of the organization and recently attempted a takeover; that's now being worked out in mediation. So the premise of your ad hominem is false. Cato has a history of taking libertarian positions and criticizing both the left and the right in a principled way. And beyond that, Julian Sanchez, the guest author here, is well known for criticizing the right (for example, he coined the phrase "epistemic closure" to refer to the lack of openness of the right to outside information, as he perceived it). So, in brief, what you said was not actually worth mentioning. It would have been a poor argument even if true, and is actually totally false.

sophacles 14y ago
Actually, when placing a piece in greater context, mentioning the source and the tendencies of a source, is not an ad hominem fallacy. (It is ad hominem, just not fallaciously so). A part I noted in the article that is subtly trying to conflate two things, is that privacy guards are injected as a first amendment violation, in an article over the absurdity of computers being an independent actor in free speech. They may be related topics, but suggesting privacy protections are silly because they are obviously first amendment issues akin to computer speech is a bit questionable. Further the article presents some strawman arguments with regard to that particular issue - for instance the issue of hand compilation suddenly being ok for everyone worried about computer speech wrt privacy: well no, that particular issue has been hashed out many times in pre-computer eras, with things like city directories and telephone books. Second, just because someone criticizes the left and the right both, does not matter when characterizing the things a particular organization cares to publish, particularly when that statement doesn't support the characterization of the group as a right leaning group. Plenty of "liberal" groups criticize the left, even though no one would disagree they are liberal (e.g. socialist groups regularly attack the democrats for not doing enough, bowing to centrism, whatever). Finally, it was worth mentioning in that without such a warning about strong political leanings, one may not be inclined to be on the lookout for the above mentioned types of issue conflation. A warning about this is fair, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion, it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention for it and understand implicit biases in a piece.
- anamax 14y ago
  > Finally, it was worth mentioning in that without such a warning about strong political leanings, one may not be inclined to be on the lookout for the above mentioned types of issue conflation. A warning about this is fair, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion, it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention for it and understand implicit biases in a piece. Shorter sophacles "I try to appear objective so don't notice that I'm applying a double standard". Namely, he'll make up stuff about Koch and their ilk but folks he agrees with get a pass. And he expects to be praised for this. > A part I noted in the article that is subtly trying to conflate two things, is that privacy guards are injected as a first amendment violation, in an article over the absurdity of computers being an independent actor in free speech. That part was so important that it didn't rate a mention until he got called on the Koch fallacy. That might have been an interesting discussion, but he was more interested in poisoning the well.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >but he was more interested in poisoning the well. Really. Mentioning that a group has typically right-wing views is considered poisoning the well. How the heck does THAT work? You've done a hell of a lot of assuming both about me and my position based on nothing more than saying a group has right wing views. Is that somehow incorrect?
    - anamax 14y ago
      You've made several choices. Those choices have consequences. If you didn't intend them.... For example, you've never bothered to point out that other groups have left-wing views. And, as I pointed out, you could have discussed the content. Instead, you went with an unfounded smear. (Edit: He intended it as a smear and believes that all right-thinking people take Koch-association as damning.) I apologise for pointing this out.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        I think it reflects more on you that you consider "having right wing views" to be a smear and poisoning the well and the like. And where do you know all this stuff about me, is the other thing I'd like to know. How the hell do you know what I do or not do in a given situation?

sophacles 14y ago

Actually, when placing a piece in greater context, mentioning the source and the tendencies of a source, is not an ad hominem fallacy. (It is ad hominem, just not fallaciously so). A part I noted in the article that is subtly trying to conflate two things, is that privacy guards are injected as a first amendment violation, in an article over the absurdity of computers being an independent actor in free speech. They may be related topics, but suggesting privacy protections are silly because they are obviously first amendment issues akin to computer speech is a bit questionable. Further the article presents some strawman arguments with regard to that particular issue - for instance the issue of hand compilation suddenly being ok for everyone worried about computer speech wrt privacy: well no, that particular issue has been hashed out many times in pre-computer eras, with things like city directories and telephone books. Second, just because someone criticizes the left and the right both, does not matter when characterizing the things a particular organization cares to publish, particularly when that statement doesn't support the characterization of the group as a right leaning group. Plenty of "liberal" groups criticize the left, even though no one would disagree they are liberal (e.g. socialist groups regularly attack the democrats for not doing enough, bowing to centrism, whatever). Finally, it was worth mentioning in that without such a warning about strong political leanings, one may not be inclined to be on the lookout for the above mentioned types of issue conflation. A warning about this is fair, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion, it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention for it and understand implicit biases in a piece.

anamax 14y ago
> Finally, it was worth mentioning in that without such a warning about strong political leanings, one may not be inclined to be on the lookout for the above mentioned types of issue conflation. A warning about this is fair, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion, it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention for it and understand implicit biases in a piece. Shorter sophacles "I try to appear objective so don't notice that I'm applying a double standard". Namely, he'll make up stuff about Koch and their ilk but folks he agrees with get a pass. And he expects to be praised for this. > A part I noted in the article that is subtly trying to conflate two things, is that privacy guards are injected as a first amendment violation, in an article over the absurdity of computers being an independent actor in free speech. That part was so important that it didn't rate a mention until he got called on the Koch fallacy. That might have been an interesting discussion, but he was more interested in poisoning the well.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >but he was more interested in poisoning the well. Really. Mentioning that a group has typically right-wing views is considered poisoning the well. How the heck does THAT work? You've done a hell of a lot of assuming both about me and my position based on nothing more than saying a group has right wing views. Is that somehow incorrect?
  - anamax 14y ago
    You've made several choices. Those choices have consequences. If you didn't intend them.... For example, you've never bothered to point out that other groups have left-wing views. And, as I pointed out, you could have discussed the content. Instead, you went with an unfounded smear. (Edit: He intended it as a smear and believes that all right-thinking people take Koch-association as damning.) I apologise for pointing this out.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      I think it reflects more on you that you consider "having right wing views" to be a smear and poisoning the well and the like. And where do you know all this stuff about me, is the other thing I'd like to know. How the hell do you know what I do or not do in a given situation?