PEP 308 vote type (was Re: Update to PEP308: if-then-else expression)

[Anna]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:05:03 +0000, Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Laura Creighton wrote:
> 
>> The logical fallacy of 'ad hominem' is when I say 'Don't vote for
>> ternaries because Max is an idiot'.
> 
> "Ad hominem" means "to the person."  Ad hominem arguments are those
> where you are attacking the person, not what they're saying.

Um, close...

"An 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."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

She didn't reject your argument because you're an idiot (or any other
"personal" fact about you)... therefore, it's not an ad hominem.

> I don't know where
> you come from, but claiming that someone is wrong because they're
> ignorant certainly comes close.

Erm, well, yes - but she didn't do that (she clearly gave it as just an
example when you brought up ad hominem). So now you're setting up a
strawman. Nice job.

> That you took the opportunity to engage in an ad hominem by admitting
> that you were engaging in a mischaracterization earlier doesn't exactly
> pretty the picture.

What part of "I don't think you understand this" is an ad hominem? No,
really - I'd like to know. Cuz I'm still waiting for you to address *her*
arguments on Approval-Voting-A and Approval-Voting-B...which, given the
traffic, I may have missed... Feel free to point out where I missed it.
 
>> And if you
>> are still for Approval-Voting-A, then I think that you still do not
>> understand it.
>
> Okay, now you've defaulted to, "If you do not agree with me, then you
> are ignorant."

Um - no...
Laura explained why she thinks Option A doesn't achieve your expressed
goal. You haven't explained why she's wrong. You seem to be still
supporting it, so: it looks like you don't understand (either Option A or
her argument).

Instead of trying to play logic games, why don't you address her arguments
against Approval voting.

> That sounds like an appeal to authority to me; that would make a third
> fallacy.  Congratulations, you must have gone for the three-for-one
> deal.

Congratulations - you've managed to side-step her argument very nicely.
Now, kindly let the rest of us in on why she's wrong please?

Just my $.03 worth.
Anna
--
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. By the beans of java the
thoughts acquire speed,  the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a
warning. By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.