Had another 48hr game jam this weekend...

[Timon Gehr]

On 09/04/2013 11:26 AM, Joakim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:34:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.
>>
>> That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.
>
> By whom?  [...]
>

When communication fails, there is usually not a single side responsible 
for it. (Unless one side is trolling. Trolls are typically anonymous.)

>>> They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad,
>>> just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments to
>>> try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to carve out
>>> a place for open source.  You may agree with their conclusion and
>>> therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial observer wouldn't.
>>
>> "Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks, even if
>> that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion topic. "Any"
>> impartial observer would interpret those as lack of a well-reasoned
>> argument and decide to spend his time impartially observing something
>> more interesting.
>
> I call it like I see it.

Great.

> An impartial observer can determine if what
> you call "personal attacks," more like labeling of the usually silly or
> wrong tenor of their arguments
> and what kind of person generally makes such dumb arguments, are accurate.

How? Accuracy of conclusions of fallacious reasoning is mostly 
incidental. Consider googling "ad hominem", "association fallacy" and 
"fallacy of irrelevance".

> If you want to take a long thread full of arguments about the topic
> and pick out a little name-calling
> and then run away, clearly the argument is lost on you.
>

Frankly, I'm unimpressed. It's you who picked out the name-calling 
instead of arguments when summarizing the past discussion. In case any 
valuable arguments were part of that discussion then I'd advise to pick 
out those instead and put them in a coherent form.

> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 00:25:30 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 16:33:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.  The OSS zealots
>>> repeatedly make arguments that are wrong, irrelevant, and worst, just
>>> completely out of left field.  This is a common pathology when you
>>> have decided on your conclusion and are arguing backwards from it:
>>> your arguments don't make any sense and come out of left field.
>>>
>>> They have decided that open source is good and closed source is bad,
>>> just like the global warming zealots, and will make silly arguments
>>> to try and justify that, even to someone like me who is trying to
>>> carve out a place for open source.  You may agree with their
>>> conclusion and therefore defend their arguments, but any impartial
>>> observer wouldn't.
>>
>> You seem confused by the difference between saying something and
>> providing conclusive evidence.
>
> That thread _is_ conclusive evidence.  If you think otherwise, you are
> deeply confused.

(Please do not mess up the threading.)

Well, if this kind of simply-minded pseudo-reasoning is to find 
resonance, it has to be targeted at a less critical audience.