[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Summary of the debian-devel BoF at Debconf9

On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Michael Banck wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>         Allowing these logical fallacies to stand, and not refuting
>>  them, lead to a discussion that goes nowhere, or floats off into sub
>>  optimal directions if not scotched in the bud.
>>         Indeed, leaving logical fallacies unchallenged does nore to harm
>>  the discussion than pointing them out and trying to bring the thread
>>  back to a logical discussion; and leaving ad hominem attacks
>>  unchallenged poisons the discussion environment to the point that it
>>  detracts from the discussion itself.
> I think peopluld prefer if those were pointed out in private mail.

        That assumes the only one you are seeking to give the right
 impression about the topic at hand is the person making the logical
 fallacy; but, really, you want to refute the illogical, fallaciour
 argument in the forum where it was published.  Allowing logical
 fallacies to be widely disseminated, and the refutation to go to
 private email,  is likely to lead to the outcome that the public
 discussion and archives are fill of unchallenged, unrefuted local

        This seems somehow suboptimal to me.

There are twenty-five people left in the world, and twenty-seven of them
are hamburgers. -- Ed Sanders
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: