3 ms·
"pedantic to the point of sophistry" Gotta love how those who can't comprehend reach for the ad hominem. And it's so absurdly hypocritical ... the claim that "
by jibal 1y ago
"pedantic to the point of sophistry"
Gotta love how those who can't comprehend reach for the ad hominem. And it's so absurdly hypocritical ... the claim that "A computer cannot store "letters", "numbers", "pictures" or anything else. The only thing it can store and work with are bits" is extraordinarily pedantic sophistry and WRONG. It comes from people who have no understanding of the concepts of a representation and abstraction and either don't know how digital storage works or are pretending not to. The many bi-state mechanisms we use for digital storage are not bits, they represent bits. And CPUs don't contain (or "store") bits, they are made of transistors that control the flow of electrons ... modeling this as "bits" is an abstraction.
But hey, I guess John von Neumann was a pedant and a sophist when he talked about stored program computers rather than stored bit computers.
- torstenvl 1y agoAn ad hominem is a fallacious argument pertaining to one or more individual characteristics of one or more persons. Criticism of an argument as pedantic and/or sophistry cannot possibly be an ad hominem, because it is a criticism of the argument itself. By contrast, your attempt to discredit me by reference to some other interaction we seem to have had is an ad hominem. More interestingly, your reference to John von Neumann and your reference to a moderator are both also a subclass of ad hominems known as "appeals to authority." https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-ad-hominem-fallacy/ https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-ad-hominem-fallacy/