@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:39:15 -0500
Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 1/25/13 2:12 AM, Artur Skawina wrote:
> > On 01/24/13 21:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 1/24/13 2:03 PM, Artur Skawina wrote:
> >>> Trying to make arguments you don't like go away and silencing the
> >>> messenger is your MO.
> >>
> >> Now that's what's called "ad hominem".
> >
> > No, it's not - it's just stating the facts; this was not the first
> > such incident.
> 
> Of course it is. The definition is simple enough, e.g. from
> Wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for
> argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an
> opponent instead of against their argument.
> 

"Ad hominem" *as a logical fallacy* is only applicable when the
argument against the person is *intended* to prove something unrelated
to the targeted person.

For example, "Joe Schmo is a known asshole" *could* very easily be a
logical fallacy. But it clearly *isn't* a fallacy if the speaker is
using it to show: "Joe Schmo, your request to be a kindergarten teacher
should be rejected."

Artur was clearly making a side note about an unfortunate tendency in
some of your posts that I've noticed as well. This was to make you
aware of it and hopefully do it less. It was NOT, as you suggest, being
put forth as evidence for Artur's property-related arguments.