Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Sep 2010 21:18 UTC, submitted by gireesh
Thread beginning with comment 441788
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Linux distro #37264828737
by lemur2 on Mon 20th Sep 2010 13:53
in reply to "RE[6]: Linux distro #37264828737"
"Who are you to tell me what to do? I know what his comment was meant to imply, and I refute it utterly.
You did not refute anything, you posted a bunch of numbers in response to a post that was never about numbers to begin with. Again, learn to hyperbole. "
You need to get off your high horse. The OP was indeed using hyperbole to try to make a point, but nevertheless the underlying point was wrong. Trying to be clever with wild exaggeration (hyperbole) shouldn't be allowed to become a vehicle via which it becomes possible to create an invalid impression.
Learn about the many techniques used to present false argumentation, and associated logical fallacies such as these (elements of which are present in the original post):
Style over substance fallacy
Bare assertion fallacy
Ad nauseam
Judgmental language
Appeal to tradition
and finally,
Proof by intimidation (which, BTW, is also what you are trying to do).
PS: I looked up the meaning of "refute" in the phrase "I refute it utterly". It transpires that the phrase does not mean what I had intended. I should have said "I dispute it utterly", so my apologies there. Mea culpa.
Edited 2010-09-20 13:59 UTC
RE[8]: Linux distro #37264828737
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 20th Sep 2010 16:04
in reply to "RE[7]: Linux distro #37264828737"
The OP was indeed using hyperbole to try to make a point, but nevertheless the underlying point was wrong.
Are you suggesting that nt_jerkface didn't actually perform an exhaustive series of tests and statistical analyses before arriving at his conclusion?!?!? Gasp, say it ain't so!
Learn about the many techniques used to present false argumentation, and associated logical fallacies such as these (elements of which are present in the original post):
Style over substance fallacy
Bare assertion fallacy
Ad nauseam
Judgmental language
Appeal to tradition
and finally,
Proof by intimidation
Style over substance fallacy
Bare assertion fallacy
Ad nauseam
Judgmental language
Appeal to tradition
and finally,
Proof by intimidation
You missed one:
Use the words "shill" or "astroturfer" as if they were synonyms for "someone I don't agree with". Or there's the "lite" version of the same technique, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you must be "brainwashed by the powers-that-be/propaganda" or "a slave to 'the man'" or whatever other small-change cliche you prefer.




Member since:
2009-03-19
You did not refute anything, you posted a bunch of numbers in response to a post that was never about numbers to begin with. Again, learn to hyperbole.