Zemlin on the Linux Foundation's by-law changes

Posted Jan 31, 2016 9:28 UTC (Sun) by gerv (guest, #3376)
In reply to: Zemlin on the Linux Foundation's by-law changes by nix
Parent article: Zemlin on the Linux Foundation's by-law changes

Not read the blog post, have no idea who "that man" is, but:

<blockquote>
The citation of a blog post by that man provides enough evidence that pheldens is not really worth listening to.
</blockquote>

could be used in a textbook as a classic example of the genetic fallacy.

Zemlin on the Linux Foundation's by-law changes

Posted Feb 10, 2016 20:09 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

Yes, except that he's approvingly citing a blog post by someone who believes that women should be denied the vote, who advocates the extermination of the populations of entire continents (seriously!)... this provides evidence that either the OP has done astonishingly little research (reading the comments on that post or looking at any surrounding posts would suffice) or that he thinks positions such as Theodore Beale holds to be unexceptionable.

Both positions are damning.

Zemlin on the Linux Foundation's by-law changes

Posted Feb 10, 2016 20:46 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link] (1 responses)

You're still using a fallacy. A couple of them, even.

Other beliefs held don't show anything about the particular subject being discussed. Someone can be wrong about ten things but still right about five others.

The other fallacy is that because you don't like the results of a particular argument that the logic is wrong. For example "women should be denied the vote" is probably (I haven't read his argument) the result of some facts and logic. Just saying that you don't like the end-result of his argument doesn't invalidate it. You'd have to actually find the flaw in it.

And not related to fallacies, I often find that arguments with crazy results are what happens when someone very smart and clever is messing around with you, such as the quite logical sounding "proof" that 1+1=3, for large enough values of 1.

Zemlin on the Linux Foundation's by-law changes

Posted Mar 2, 2016 14:06 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Honestly, a five second google would show you the blog posts in which "Vox Day" endeavours to show why women should be denied the vote (I don't recommend reading them, they leave a foul taste in your mouth). His argument is not based on logical reasoning or facts of any sort (no, I'm not linking to the guy, nor am I reiterating his "arguments", they're too unpleasant to type in and I don't want to inflict them on anyone else here). His extreme racism and eliminationism seems unlikely to be based on logic either, but frankly I couldn't get into reading those without hearing my ancestors metaphorically screaming at me so I had to stop.

This is not someone who thrives on rational argumentation. His blog is, alas, publically visible, so you're welcome to confirm that by reading it. I don't plan to, not any more.

(And the expressed opinions of and beliefs held by an individual *do* very much show the likelihood of correctness of further opinions and beliefs. The single largest predictor that a person will believe in any given conspiracy theory is whether they believe in other conspiracy theories. This is even true for mutually contradictory ones, such as that Elvis was killed by the CIA and that Elvis is still alive. Vox Day's expressed opinions and beliefs are repugnant and based on fear, hatred, and a desire for self-aggrandizement[1]: that strongly suggests that any statement he makes should be considered wrong or at the very least self-serving unless multiply confirmed by other sources.)

[1] honestly, this is someone who set up a slate for the Hugo Awards nominations last year and put *himself* on it multiple times, and filled up the remaining slots with people published by his tiny publishing house. "Shameless" doesn't even *begin* to cover it.