Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

CISPA is the New SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/etc. etc. etc.

<< < (5/9) > >>

IainB:
It's not an ad hominem. I didn't attack him. I only pointed out that there is a conflict of interest, and I questioned his motives. I then pointed out my cynicism and reluctance to believe that he's doing this out of the goodness of his heart.
-Renegade (April 18, 2012, 01:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, sorry, I thought you were probably unintentionally making an inference that his argument/statement may have been invalid.
I don't think you need to attack him for it to be an ad hominem.

For example, from my old lecture notes:
Logical Fallacies - Argumentum ad hominem:
Let us suppose that a poor man is discussing the question of a capital levy with a rich man. The rich man, we will imagine, has produced a number of valid arguments which show, he claims, that the economic consequences of a capital levy would, on the whole, be bad for the community at large.

The poor man might be very likely to reply simply: "You would say all that, you're rich." Now such a method of argument is unfair and dishonest because:
(a) it carries an invitation to assumptive implication by inference that the rich man's arguments must be invalid because of something external to the construction of those arguments - i.e., he is personally prejudiced because of his wealthy status - though actually this has nothing to do with the the arguments themselves, which remain valid. (Remember that "valid" means logically valid, not whether we agree or disagree with them.)

(b) it does not in the least help to solve the question at issue, which is whether a capital levy will or will not benefit the community.

--- End quote ---

What Brin said was apparently quite valid.
Sorry if I was mistaken.

Renegade:
It's not an ad hominem. I didn't attack him. I only pointed out that there is a conflict of interest, and I questioned his motives. I then pointed out my cynicism and reluctance to believe that he's doing this out of the goodness of his heart.
-Renegade (April 18, 2012, 01:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, sorry, I thought you were probably unintentionally making an inference that his argument/statement may have been invalid.
I don't think you need to attack him for it to be an ad hominem.
-IainB (April 18, 2012, 02:36 AM)
--- End quote ---

Oh, no! Not in the least. I didn't comment on his argument at all. :) He's a smart fellow, so I'm quite certain that he can present a decent argument. (That was a pro hominem argument~! :P ;D Well, kind of...)

Nah, if I go the ad hominem route, I'd do a much better job. (I have a degree in this stuff - literally. :) )

IainB:
Looks like Brin may have felt he was misquoted or quoted out of context, or something. See the clarification on his G+ here.

IainB:
CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence'
CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence'
Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday April 18, @02:14AM
from the don't-make-us-shut-down-the-internet-again-buddy dept.

SolKeshNaranek writes with news that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA, has decided to tempt fate by referring to the protests that are springing up as 'turbulence on the way down to landing.' From the article: "What really comes through in the article — which mostly talks about how Rogers has been supposedly working with Google to change some of the language in the bill to make it more acceptable -- is how little concern Rogers has for the public. Instead, most of the article just talks about how he's been working with tech companies to make sure they're okay with the bill. And while that's a start, it's no surprise that lots of tech companies would be okay with CISPA, because it grants them broad immunity if they happen to hand over all sorts of private info to the government. But to then call the protests mere 'turbulence' is pretty damned insulting to the actual people this will impact the most: the public, whose privacy may be violated."

--- End quote ---

Such churlish disregard for the proles!

Translation:
"This bill is going through whether you like it or not, so shove it."
--- End quote ---

Renegade:
Such churlish disregard for the proles!

Translation:
"This bill is going through whether you like it or not, so shove it."
--- End quote ---
-IainB (April 18, 2012, 06:19 AM)
--- End quote ---

Well, if enough people scream about this, they may make *him* shove it~! :)

I started a thread with a link where people can sign a petition against CISPA here. ;) Hint hint. ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page