3 ms·
This and its parent are ad hominem attacks (DH1 -- see http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html) -- it may be in the writ
by swolchok 18y ago
This and its parent are ad hominem attacks (DH1 -- see http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html) -- it may be in the writer's interest to complain about the Internet, but that does not mean that the writer's points are incorrect.
- russell 18y ago"..ad hominem attacks", are you kidding? They are questioning the writer's objectivity, as do it. The writer's points/ conclusions are incorrect. The solution is not to constrain or eliminate Google, it's for the Guardian and the other content providers to adapt to be relevant.
- kragen 18y agoQuestioning the writer's objectivity rather than rebutting their points is an ad hominem attack. I'm not kidding. If you think the writer's points and conclusions are incorrect (I do) you should write a rebuttal, rather than pointing out that the writer isn't disinterested. Interested parties can still make valid arguments!
- benmathes 18y agoThe ad-hominem fallacy fallacy: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html A critique is not ad-hominem if the target is a character trait relevant to the speaker's point.
- mstoehr 18y agoHow do you think that the character traits of the writer are relevant to his case against Google?
- benmathes 18y agoClaiming that the author was not objective is relevant to his argument.
- _pius 18y agoSure, people sometimes misuse the term ad hominem, but not in this case. The comment said that: "Editorial articles in The Guardian are generally in sympathy with the middle-ground liberal to left-wing end of the political spectrum" I fail to see how being liberal implies the bizarre views in the article. Bringing up the political leaning of the Guardian was a bit of a cheap shot and not at all germane to the topic.
- kragen 18y ago"A critique is not ad-hominem if the target is a character trait relevant to the speaker's point." As I interpret your sentence, that is not what the article you are quoting says, and it is also not correct. This is irrelevant here, however, because the character trait being discussed is not related to the speaker's point; it is merely an argumentum ad hominem.