3 ms·

First of all, if you click on anon1358's profile you'll see 3.5k karma... about as much as you have. If you read through his previous comments they are pretty m

by dlss 13y ago

First of all, if you click on anon1358's profile you'll see 3.5k karma... about as much as you have. If you read through his previous comments they are pretty mundane, so I don't think he's just changing nicks for comments like these. Which is to say that there are reasons to use a different name online that don't involve secretly wanting pg to give you money/help... It's also true that people doing grand things make more decisions, and hence more bad ones. I don't think that makes discussion of those decisions somehow off limits for discussion. Like, I'm reading anon1358's comment, and yours. Yours reads like an ad-hominem. His reads like a "As a community we seem to disagree with pg on X, maybe if we band together he will listen". I agree he doesn't seem open to hearing the other side, but I think his tone is much more constructive than yours.

jessedhillon 13y ago
It's not ad hominem -- I'm not saying he's wrong because he's a coward. I'm saying if you're going to be so judgmental and flippant about a process you probably have never been involved with, and also so personal as to call out a person by name for their own decisions, don't be cowardly when you do it. He could have very well-placed criticisms actually, I don't make any assessment one way or the other as to that question. Bottom line -- the guy wants to hold PG accountable to some imaginary (but popular) standard, while evading accountability himself.
- ohashi 13y ago
  You're pretty much making a text book ad hominem attack. You're going after him instead of his argument. It's as simple as that.
  - grannyg00se 13y ago
    "You're going after him instead of his argument." That doesn't make it ad hominem. That's a phrase used in the context of a debate. jessedhillon isn't after the argument at all. He's attacking a certain behaviour. ad hominem: "Your point about global warming is invalid because you slap your children and I don't like that." not ad hominem: "You slap your children and I don't like that."
    - BgSpnnrs 13y ago
      Well by that measure it's off-topic then.
    - ohashi 13y ago
      He basically admits he didn't even consider the arguments. He calls the person a coward for posting anonymously. He's attacking the person's behavior irrelevant to the argument. Attacking the man, and admitting he never considered the argument at all. So if it's not considered ad hominem it's just trolling.
- ZoF 13y ago
  > It's not ad hominem Heh. Reread your initial statement.

by dlss 13y ago

jessedhillon 13y ago

It's not ad hominem -- I'm not saying he's wrong because he's a coward. I'm saying if you're going to be so judgmental and flippant about a process you probably have never been involved with, and also so personal as to call out a person by name for their own decisions, don't be cowardly when you do it. He could have very well-placed criticisms actually, I don't make any assessment one way or the other as to that question. Bottom line -- the guy wants to hold PG accountable to some imaginary (but popular) standard, while evading accountability himself.

ohashi 13y ago
You're pretty much making a text book ad hominem attack. You're going after him instead of his argument. It's as simple as that.
- grannyg00se 13y ago
  "You're going after him instead of his argument." That doesn't make it ad hominem. That's a phrase used in the context of a debate. jessedhillon isn't after the argument at all. He's attacking a certain behaviour. ad hominem: "Your point about global warming is invalid because you slap your children and I don't like that." not ad hominem: "You slap your children and I don't like that."
  - BgSpnnrs 13y ago
    Well by that measure it's off-topic then.
  - ohashi 13y ago
    He basically admits he didn't even consider the arguments. He calls the person a coward for posting anonymously. He's attacking the person's behavior irrelevant to the argument. Attacking the man, and admitting he never considered the argument at all. So if it's not considered ad hominem it's just trolling.
ZoF 13y ago
> It's not ad hominem Heh. Reread your initial statement.