4 ms·

https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem+attack https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem+attack Edit: Just out of curiosity, I looked up his video about St

by sfblah 2y ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem+attack https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem+attack Edit: Just out of curiosity, I looked up his video about Starlink, and his point was it's a bad business, not that it's physically impossible to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaUCDZ9d09Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaUCDZ9d09Y I'd actually love it if you could find a single thing he says in that video that's provably false. I'm quite confident history will judge Elon Musk properly, as the "Too Big To Fail" version of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes.

jimrandomh 2y ago
Talking about someone's track record of predictions is not an ad hominem, in the context of evaluating their credibility with respect to the subject of those predictions.
- sfblah 2y ago
  Actually, it is. From the dictionary: An ad hominem attack occurs when someone attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. For example, saying "You're always wrong, so you're wrong about this too" without addressing the current claim would be ad hominem. That's exactly what the person I responded to was doing.
  - rlt 2y ago
    Claim: > Take a look at videos on YouTube by ThunderF00t. SpaceX is pretty problematic. Response: > Thunderf00t has basically 0 credibility when it comes to SpaceX. He predicted that starlink couldn't ever work, for example. In fact, he even thought that this landing would fail. You’re claiming Thunderf00t is a good resource on SpaceX. The response gave examples of how he’s been consistently wrong. That is not an ad hominem attack.
    - sfblah 2y ago
      Actually both the examples you cited are misrepresented. But whatever. You're in the cult. I get it.
      - rlt 2y ago
        And you’re in the other cult ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
mardifoufs 2y ago
>They claim they're going to get these laser communications between the satellites which will make things faster for a long distance... [this is because light travels faster in a vacuum than through fiber optic cable you up to London a very important one for the Global Financial system Starlink latency is under 50 milliseconds while the current Internet is around 70 milliseconds] yeah Starlink can't do any of that at the moment. >Probably something to do with the fact that the satellites are hundreds of miles or kilometers apart and you're trying to hit a tiny moving Target from another moving target with a laser and then and chaining those together that doesn't sound very easy but they're promising to launch some satellites that can do it in the next generation [getting close to launching satellite 1.5 which has laser interest satellite links] >Now where have I heard that before... Let's just call me skeptical on this one https://youtu.be/zaUCDZ9d09Y?t=1688 https://youtu.be/zaUCDZ9d09Y?t=1688 This entire video is just the same thing over and over. As is usual with him, he doesn't actually make any strong enough claim and just goes on endless sneering. But in the context of the video, it is absolutely clear that he's saying it is just another lie and that it's basically impossible. Remember, this was mere months before the laser network went up. He also claimed that the bandwidth is never going to be usable, but it absolutely is. Also, that's just the fallacy fallacy. This isn't some sort of debate club, it makes perfect sense to discredit someone based on past record. For example I would absolutely take with a grain of salt anything Musk promises. It would be very dumb to just erase any priors everytime someone claims something. And no one does that expect when it's to play fallacy semantics online. I never attacked thunderf00t as a person, I'm attacking his completely bogus track record on SpaceX. This basically he does every single SpaceX event. I'm not even exaggerating, I'm pretty sure the exact same happened in the latest stream. Just making up stuff about holes, "guaranteed" failures, it's super weird. https://youtu.be/OCUceQzCh-Q https://youtu.be/OCUceQzCh-Q
- sfblah 2y ago
  The entire video is not the same thing over and over. He lodges specific, credible criticisms of all manner of Musk claims. I think any reasonable person looking at the history of Musks' businesses would come away viewing Musk as a pathological liar, not Musk's critics. As for the specific quote about laser communications and latency, Thunderf00t's criticism was specifically talking about the latency claims. I actually thought you might be right, but some research indicates that the laser links do not currently provide improved latency, and they are only used when no ground station is available. I very much appreciate that Thunderf00t does it for every SpaceX event. Someone needs to tell people the truth. I've known Musk was a con artist for decades (since he was fired from Paypal for gross incompetence), but it seems America just woke up to it when he bought Twitter.

by sfblah 2y ago

jimrandomh 2y ago

Talking about someone's track record of predictions is not an ad hominem, in the context of evaluating their credibility with respect to the subject of those predictions.

sfblah 2y ago
Actually, it is. From the dictionary: An ad hominem attack occurs when someone attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. For example, saying "You're always wrong, so you're wrong about this too" without addressing the current claim would be ad hominem. That's exactly what the person I responded to was doing.
- rlt 2y ago
  Claim: > Take a look at videos on YouTube by ThunderF00t. SpaceX is pretty problematic. Response: > Thunderf00t has basically 0 credibility when it comes to SpaceX. He predicted that starlink couldn't ever work, for example. In fact, he even thought that this landing would fail. You’re claiming Thunderf00t is a good resource on SpaceX. The response gave examples of how he’s been consistently wrong. That is not an ad hominem attack.
  - sfblah 2y ago
    Actually both the examples you cited are misrepresented. But whatever. You're in the cult. I get it.
    - rlt 2y ago
      And you’re in the other cult ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

mardifoufs 2y ago

>They claim they're going to get these laser communications between the satellites which will make things faster for a long distance... [this is because light travels faster in a vacuum than through fiber optic cable you up to London a very important one for the Global Financial system Starlink latency is under 50 milliseconds while the current Internet is around 70 milliseconds] yeah Starlink can't do any of that at the moment. >Probably something to do with the fact that the satellites are hundreds of miles or kilometers apart and you're trying to hit a tiny moving Target from another moving target with a laser and then and chaining those together that doesn't sound very easy but they're promising to launch some satellites that can do it in the next generation [getting close to launching satellite 1.5 which has laser interest satellite links] >Now where have I heard that before... Let's just call me skeptical on this one https://youtu.be/zaUCDZ9d09Y?t=1688 https://youtu.be/zaUCDZ9d09Y?t=1688 This entire video is just the same thing over and over. As is usual with him, he doesn't actually make any strong enough claim and just goes on endless sneering. But in the context of the video, it is absolutely clear that he's saying it is just another lie and that it's basically impossible. Remember, this was mere months before the laser network went up. He also claimed that the bandwidth is never going to be usable, but it absolutely is. Also, that's just the fallacy fallacy. This isn't some sort of debate club, it makes perfect sense to discredit someone based on past record. For example I would absolutely take with a grain of salt anything Musk promises. It would be very dumb to just erase any priors everytime someone claims something. And no one does that expect when it's to play fallacy semantics online. I never attacked thunderf00t as a person, I'm attacking his completely bogus track record on SpaceX. This basically he does every single SpaceX event. I'm not even exaggerating, I'm pretty sure the exact same happened in the latest stream. Just making up stuff about holes, "guaranteed" failures, it's super weird. https://youtu.be/OCUceQzCh-Q https://youtu.be/OCUceQzCh-Q

sfblah 2y ago
The entire video is not the same thing over and over. He lodges specific, credible criticisms of all manner of Musk claims. I think any reasonable person looking at the history of Musks' businesses would come away viewing Musk as a pathological liar, not Musk's critics. As for the specific quote about laser communications and latency, Thunderf00t's criticism was specifically talking about the latency claims. I actually thought you might be right, but some research indicates that the laser links do not currently provide improved latency, and they are only used when no ground station is available. I very much appreciate that Thunderf00t does it for every SpaceX event. Someone needs to tell people the truth. I've known Musk was a con artist for decades (since he was fired from Paypal for gross incompetence), but it seems America just woke up to it when he bought Twitter.