Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:22:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:22:20 -0400 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:57839 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:22:19 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 13/07/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: References:

<20020916120022.22FFC2C12A@lists.samba.org> <11627.1032215467@redhat.com> To: Daniel Phillips Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Understanding the Principles of Argumentation #3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 15:27:43 +0100 Message-ID: <3829.1033482463@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1665 Lines: 43 phillips@arcor.de said: > > It is my understanding that the ad hominem fallacy takes the form "you > > are a patronising little shit, therefore what you say cannot be true". > > > > Rusty's comment seemed to be only that you were a patronising little > > shit, and not that this proved you to be incorrect -- hence it doesn't > > appear to be a particularly fine example of 'ad hominem' at all. > You are entirely incorrect. The issue raised was "given two > interfaces with the same functionality, choose the simpler of them". > Instead of addressing that issue, the author was attacked. Perfect > example, as I said. No, Daniel. Do try to pay attention. The ad hominem fallacy take the form "You are a patronising little shit, therefore what you say cannot be true.". Rusty's mail contained only the first half of that 'logic', and hence was not an example of ad hominem at all. Stating that you are a patronising little shit was a digression and was irrelevant to the argument. Stating that _because_ you are a patronising little shit your claims must therefore be wrong, would be an example of the ad hominem fallacy. But as I said -- Rusty didn't do that; he only did the former. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Note the words "Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)." -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/