On 0, Josh Rehman <java.josh@verizon.net> wrote: > > From: Jerry Gaiser [mailto:jerryg@gaiser.org] > > This is the third time I've subscribed to debian-user. Each time I > leave > > in disgust because of the attitude of a few posters. Debian is *not* > the > > easiest distribution to install, but some of you folks are not helping > > your cause. > > I agree with Jerry. Consider that as a new user of this list, I began > with a post asking about ext3. I found the responses to be overall very > helpful, although at first rather terse. Encouraged, I responded to a > thread about the structure of the list itself, namely the use of > reply-to headers. Instead of responding materially to my points, one > poster, for example, made mention of my use of Outlook as a mail client, > apparently attempted to embarrass or attack me. This is, of course, a > variation of ad hominem. This argument is so common and recognizable in > the computing field it can be given a special name, let us call it the > 'ad technium' fallacy. > > The 'ad technium' fallacy is that the technology that one *uses* implies > something about the correctness of their argument. So when someone > attacks a user of this list for using Outlook (e.g., me) they are not > considering that that person might not want to be using outlook, and, in > fact, are using this list in order to stop using Outlook. (But not all > criticism of technology usage is 'argumentum ad technium', especially in > advocacy debates.) I suspect that I am the poster who made comment about your use of Outlook (I certainly made comment on *someone's* use of outlook in that thread, so it was probably you). The comment was not supposed to "embarrass or attack" you, it was a comment on a specific feature missing in Outlook. My argument boiled down to 'you can't do that because your mailer is broken, not because the list is configured wrong.' How am I supposed to make such an argument without commenting on which mailer you use? > Despite this, I have stayed on to read, and for each arrogant, petty and > bullying user of this list (perhaps tolerated because of some small > sliver of actual knowledge), there are many more kind, courteous and > patient experts (revered not only for great knowledge but also for just > being Good People) more than happy to pass on some of the enormous and > intricate wisdom of the field. > > To those especially who consistently use 'argumentum ad technium' to > bolster ego and effect an elitist posture, I say , ha! You just don't > get it! This is a forum that admires reason and correctness, the > ultimate antithesis of the logical fallacy you employ with such > sophomoric glee. I don't think I use such arguments frequently, and in the instance you have quoted I think it is unfair to accuse me of it. I agree with you that such 'logic' is pretty pointless, but please actually understand an argument before you label it 'argumentum ad technium'. > Good day, > Josh Rehman, Linux Guru Wannabe (LGW) > > P.S. If any Latin speakers out there could help me come up with a better > name for "argument from technological elitism" that would be great. I know but one jot of Latin, so can't help, sorry. An FM can be found here: http://www.nd.edu/~archives/latgramm.htm but I suspect this will not tell you more than you know already. I can't find a babelfish that supports Latin... Tom -- Tom Cook Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide Classifications of inanimate objects: Those that don't work, those that break down, and those that get lost. Get my GPG public key: https://pinky.its.adelaide.edu.au/~tkcook/tom.cook-at-adelaide.edu.au
Attachment:
pgpWeRYpTk0cC.pgp
Description: PGP signature