Pair the following five comments with their corresponding definitions:
1. “Raganwald is a blowhard whose pathetic attempts to score karma reveal him as an insecure dweeb who can’t get over being kicked around in grammar school. He and his mumblings should be should be flushed down the toilet bowl like the turds that they are.”
2. “What, raganwald is talking about beauty in code? Have you seen some of his code? Ignore him.”
3. “Raganwald sounds a lot like a Ruby fanbody, and we all know how those people think."
4. “Anyone who has spent that much time on Java clearly has no taste in software and cannot be relied upon for sound reasoning. Ignore raganwald.”
5. "Of course raganwald would say that there’s something wrong with Waterfall, he’s a Certified Scrum Master, he’s just pimping his own credentials.”
And the definitions:
A. Fallacy: Ad Hominem Abuse
B. Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem
C. Fallacy: Tu Quoque (“You Also”)
D: Fallacy: Guilt by Association
E: Not a Fallacy: Insults
Example: 1-E, This is an insult, but not fallacious.
Poe’s Law strikes again: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law
I don't think it'd be a 100% bad idea to implement some sort of knowledge-based testing, wire it up to varying levels of initial access/privs on a site, and see what happens, as an experiment. User privs could then evolve once the user had actually posted or commented or rated things.
If the person answers "Duh," you put them in some kind of post jail and make them earn their way out. I couldn't have named all those, but I recognized them as false criticisms immediately.
I found this puzzle both entertaining and educational. I guess that means I'm not qualified to post here ;-}
I have a really dumb spam filter on my blog which simply asks that the user "Type the word 'humour', but with American spelling". I've had a couple of complaints that this request is unfair to non-native speakers. My response is that you don't have to know it, you just have to know how to look it up.
(And yes, I saw that this stuff wasn't serious, but I thought it was a worthwhile point to make in any case. CAPTCHAs don't need to be things that users can pass without outside help.)
More importantly, after having made a bit of effort to be allowed in, the users might value the forum more.
There is little more annoying than someone who thinks they see logical fallacies where none exist and take the conversation from bad (real arguments intermixed with old fashioned insults) to worse (nothing but an argument from fallacy)
"I don't claim to know what an Ad Hominem is." would also be a passing response in my book...
42 75 74 20 79 6f 75 20 73 68 6f 75 6c 64 20 68
61 76 65 20 73 65 65 6e 20 74 68 61 74 20 73 6f
6d 65 20 6f 66 20 74 68 65 20 63 6f 64 65 73 20
61 72 65 20 6e 6f 6e 2d 70 72 69 6e 74 61 62 6c
65 20 63 68 61 72 61 63 74 65 72 73 20 3b 2d 29
>"He and his mumblings should be should be flushed down the toilet bowl //
So arguably you're making the case to ignore his [implied] argument based on, in the antecedent sentence, his character. Sounds ad hominem to me.
Very measured writing about yourself.