Re: OT fallacies
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:14:47 +0200
On 2006-06-03 12:10:17 +0200, "Keith H Duggar" <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu> said:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>> Keith H Duggar wrote: >>> How do you know the purpose of those insults? I for one >>> believe they served a /very/ different purpose having >>> little to do with the argumentation here. >> >> What's your take on the purpose?
> some possibilities are:
> 1) warnings to future readers. If a VI is outed frequently
> it increases the likelihood future readers will avoid
> their snake-oil.
Right. "He's an idiot, don't listen to him. He'll sell you snake
oil." That's an ad-hominem argument. It's not an argument about the
issue. It's an argument about the people and emotions involved in the
> 2) shame as deterrent. If a VI is insulted enough times by
> enough people they /may/ pause to examine themselves.
When you are shamed in public, your standing is decreased and others will not listen to you. Therefore an attempt to cause shame to a debater through the use of insults as opposed to actual subtantive arguments, is an ad-hominem argument. It is an attempt to use human emotion and feelings instead of substance.
> 3) venting frustration.
Once, perhaps. But not when it is gleefully repetative.
-- Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com 800-338-6716 |Received on Sun Jun 11 2006 - 18:14:47 CEST