3 ms·

Actually it's still ad hominem. The fact that you completely ignored the original post and instead attacked Steve Gibson, is indicative of an ad hominem attack.

by bargl 13y ago

Actually it's still ad hominem. The fact that you completely ignored the original post and instead attacked Steve Gibson, is indicative of an ad hominem attack. If you'd even said, this new idea is ridiculous because QR codes are inherently insecure (which is false) you'd be fine. Sources: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html I think this example is pretty much what you did. A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one." B's argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A's credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting. If you want further reading from other sources you can go to any of the following links. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AdHominem http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AdHominem

ubernostrum 13y ago
It is never fallacious to point out the historical unreliability of a source. It is doubly never fallacious to point out the unreliability of a source, on a given topic, when discussing a new claim, on that topic, from that source, because that information is relevant to how we approach and evaluate the new claim (i.e., claims from historically-unreliable sources should be subjected to greater initial scrutiny). Also, you've presented no actual rebuttal of whether Gibson's history is relevant to evaluating his present claims. Rather you've merely stated the name of a logical fallacy. Which is, itself... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

by bargl 13y ago

ubernostrum 13y ago

It is never fallacious to point out the historical unreliability of a source. It is doubly never fallacious to point out the unreliability of a source, on a given topic, when discussing a new claim, on that topic, from that source, because that information is relevant to how we approach and evaluate the new claim (i.e., claims from historically-unreliable sources should be subjected to greater initial scrutiny). Also, you've presented no actual rebuttal of whether Gibson's history is relevant to evaluating his present claims. Rather you've merely stated the name of a logical fallacy. Which is, itself... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy