3 ms·

No, the strawman you were presenting was that I had no idea about this topic because I had not experienced it myself. That is a fallacy, and it is untrue in th

by mrtron 19y ago

No, the strawman you were presenting was that I had no idea about this topic because I had not experienced it myself. That is a fallacy, and it is untrue in this situation. I did not mean it was a loaded question, I wasn't sure whether you were being a jerk or not. Clearly, you were trying to be a pompous ass, and are again with this second comment. I hardly claim to be an expert, I CLEARLY stated to have some anecdotal evidence. I was simply giving some comments based on my experiences, and whether you choose to believe me is your prerogative. Lastly, how is it improbable that starting a startup is easy? Any software developer can write their own software in a short period of time, and try to start a business based on it.

andreyf 19y ago
mnemonicsloth, mrtron - are you two dating? (serious question, you sound like a couple I know)
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- mnemonicsloth 19y ago
  This is my first meeting with mrtron, so I don't think we're dating (unless you mean 'by LiveJournal standards', in which your guess would be as good as mine). I'm engaged in the real world. We fight all the time.
jsnx 19y ago
Your use of 'strawman' is incorrect.
- mrtron 19y ago
  I hate 'arguing' this way, but no it is not. Straw man: Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated. He was presenting me as someone who had no experience with a startup, thus shooting down my arguments about the ease of starting up. Explain how this is incorrect? He presents me as an individual with no experience with startups. He then uses that to attempt to shoot down my arguments.
  - jsnx 19y ago
    For mnemonicsloth to make a strawman argument, he'd first have said something like "some people say <poor argument for $x>" and then go on "however, <picks apart argument>, so we know $x is false". Therein lies the fallacy -- a disproof of a proof of $x is not a disproof of $x. In other words, it's not about presenting a person as a poor defender, it's about presenting a poor defense. Cutting straight to a person's worth as a commentator -- as mnemonicsloth did -- is argument "ad hominem" ("to the person").

by mrtron 19y ago

andreyf 19y ago

mnemonicsloth, mrtron - are you two dating? (serious question, you sound like a couple I know)

deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
mnemonicsloth 19y ago
This is my first meeting with mrtron, so I don't think we're dating (unless you mean 'by LiveJournal standards', in which your guess would be as good as mine). I'm engaged in the real world. We fight all the time.

jsnx 19y ago

Your use of 'strawman' is incorrect.

mrtron 19y ago
I hate 'arguing' this way, but no it is not. Straw man: Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated. He was presenting me as someone who had no experience with a startup, thus shooting down my arguments about the ease of starting up. Explain how this is incorrect? He presents me as an individual with no experience with startups. He then uses that to attempt to shoot down my arguments.
- jsnx 19y ago
  For mnemonicsloth to make a strawman argument, he'd first have said something like "some people say <poor argument for $x>" and then go on "however, <picks apart argument>, so we know $x is false". Therein lies the fallacy -- a disproof of a proof of $x is not a disproof of $x. In other words, it's not about presenting a person as a poor defender, it's about presenting a poor defense. Cutting straight to a person's worth as a commentator -- as mnemonicsloth did -- is argument "ad hominem" ("to the person").