View Single Post
Old 09-21-2014, 03:36 PM   #156
eschwartz
Ex-Helpdesk Junkie
eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
eschwartz's Avatar
 
Posts: 19,421
Karma: 85400180
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Beaten Path, USA, Roundworld, This Side of Infinity
Device: Kindle Touch fw5.3.7 (Wifi only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8 View Post
I will note that since "conspiracy theory" seem to be the new catch phrase, conspiracy theory is an emotional phrase used to imply that the target is unhinged and can safely be dismissed as a crack pot. Thus, it is a form of ad homiem attack. It is particularly inappropriate since no where is a conspiracy postulated. To paraphrase Napoleon, the is no need to imply malice when simple incompetence will suffice. In this case, there is no need to postulate a conspiracy when simple human nature will suffice.
Let's have fun with fallacies.

According to Wikipedia:

Quote:
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.
Notice that ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance. It is not a fallacy if ad hominem "relates to the credibility of statements of fact". IN short, if we accuse you of being factually unreliable in this matter, it is not a fallacious ad hominem attack, it is something you need to respond to. When we accuse you of having no evidence to the point of qualifying as a conspiracy theory, that is a legitimate claim that can be rebutted by... drumroll... providing evidence!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8 View Post
I did _not_ say that Amazon "bought" the decision. I said that Amazon influenced the DOJ to bring the case, and from there is was business as usual. I have corrected people who keep asserting that I absolutely must be claiming a conspiracy several times now. Continuing to repeat something that isn't true, doesn't make it true.
You do know this cuts both ways???
eschwartz is offline   Reply With Quote