ad hominem [LWN.net]

ad hominem

Posted Aug 15, 2005 8:18 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
In reply to: What is Broken by Arker
Parent article: Getting in touch with the feminine side of open source (NewsForge)

> What you object to, it seems, is simply that people (both men
> and women) don't universally share your values and make decisions
> you approve of. So you want to socially-engineer your fellow
> citizens into better compliance with your idea of how they
> should be.

Thanks for the psycho-political assessment.

I'm no social engineer like Lenin or the Rockefellers, I just think it's
worth proving a point when I see someone in denial. Basically this
social change is already underway (what, a lady doctor? I couldn't
possibly...), there's no fighting for me to do. I try to direct my
political energies elsewhere.

My turn.

What you object to, it seems, is that my opinion is that the world
isn't perfect and that my ethics lead me to prefer to improve the
world than to resign myself to injustice.

Since you seem to like the world the way it is, it appears that
you would like anyone who points out a problem with it to go
away and leave you to enjoy your privileged position unmolested.

(Log in to post comments)

ad hominem is all on you man

Posted Aug 15, 2005 9:43 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

Plus more straw men than you can shake a stick at.

Rewriting all my quotes for me to change the meanings to match what you imagine I should have said was a nice touch. Makes it pretty clear you're incapable of giving ideas outside of a narrow band a fair hearing - you just rewrite them in your own head until they're what you know how to argue against.

What you object to, it seems, is that my opinion is that the world isn't perfect and that my ethics lead me to prefer to improve the world than to resign myself to injustice.

Not at all. What I object to is that you claim to have a right to judge other peoples 'maternal ambitions' for instance. Your inability to accept and honor the individual who chooses to live her life for herself, instead of for your idea of a perfect society.

There is no 'perfect' at that level, because what's perfect for one person isn't perfect for another. This means that implementing one persons 'perfect' can only be done by implementing another persons 'hell' - until we learn to respect each other as individuals, rather than collective abstractions.

Or, to put it another way, you need to figure out what 'justice' is before you start lecturing other people about 'injustice.'

Since you seem to like the world the way it is, it appears that you would like anyone who points out a problem with it to go away and leave you to enjoy your privileged position unmolested.

Another wonderful ad-hominen, with no more basis in reality than any of the rest.

As a matter of fact, I have no privileged position, by your definitions I must be extremely oppressed.

But it's your definitions that are broken.

would you like to step outside...?

Posted Aug 16, 2005 10:10 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

It's a nice chat but lwn is not the place to sit
and contradict one another. We're supposed to be
polite, respectful, and informative and I think
we just ceased to be any of those.

Email me (fw_jon at xoddam dotnet) if you really want
to explain how I've changed your meanings.