On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:34:22 -0500 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-11-23 10:08:12 -0500, Keith H Duggar said: > > There is a well-known name for such illogical reasoning: ad hominem. > You don't understand ad hominem:
Perhaps you don't understand it. > "The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always > fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, > character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]" So, explain how motive makes the logic wrong in this case then. > In this case, JH's conduct outside of the debate (i.e., the fact that > he earns his living by selling tools and training for a particular set > of languages) and his motives (i.e., he is therefore financially > motivated to present these languages in the best possible light and to > trash-talk other languages), render his arguments in the debate > inherently suspect. Fine. Suspect his arguments to the point that you examine them closely and then explain what you found erroneous in them. Don't just claim that we should dismiss them because of who made them. You know, it's just possible that Jon actually investigated Haskell before choosing to focus on CL. That would make his opinion carry more weight, not less. Remind me, how is this relevant to Python? -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <da...@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
