std.getopt suggestion

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Thu Sep 29 11:07:52 PDT 2011


"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:j629g0$15tr$2 at digitalmars.com...
> On 9/29/11 10:15 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On 9/29/11 6:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 9/29/11 9:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> And the rest of us feel the same way about our arguments.
>>>
>>> Argumentum ad populum :o).
>>
>> Errm . no? Argumentum ad populum would e.g. be »and the rest of us
>> believe that your arguments are inferior, Andrei, so you are wrong«. :P
>
> That is implied. Either way, "the rest of us" attempts to build strength 
> in numbers.
>

Pardon the confusion. That's not the way I meant it. (Perhaps you're just 
looking for fallacies where there aren't any? j/k ;) )

What I meant is that:

1. Both you and the rest of us all feel that we stated our arguments "fairly 
and without appealing to either honor or guilt by association".

2. There is and will always be room for both sides to come up with claims of 
logical fallacies.

3. Therefore, pulling out nitpicky meta-argument cards doesn't do either 
side any good - it just ends up a stalemate and draws attention away from 
the more important face-value discussion.





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list