"it is a legitimate question as to whether the funding of the study was an influence."
No, it isn't. You think it is, and that's why I posted.
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
How many different ways can I post this? How many ways do I have to refute you? Why can't you simply read the definiton, accept you didn't know something, and correct your error?
"You notice how he's responding to everyone here with more crap? He wouldn't feel as though he needed to defend himself if he didn't feel just a little bit like a retard."
Hmm, why don't you post some of this "crap". Shouldn't be too hard with all the replying you've done.
That being said, why is it that the best reply you can come up with is to call me a retard?
"There is nothing fallacious about being wary of Microsoft-funded studies,"
You mean apart from being the definition of a circumstantial ad hominem? Like this?
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
So it is a fallacy. Now produce something that shows otherwise, specifically something other than a post from an AC troll shouting "nuh uh" over and over.
And don't argue by analogy. They're inaccurate, and fail to capture nuance.
is just too damned funny. I believe you meant "tantmount", because "pantomime" means something else.
"pantomime
1. Communication by means of gesture and facial expression: Some tourists make themselves understood abroad by pantomime.
2.
1. The telling of a story without words, by means of bodily movements, gestures, and facial expressions.
2. A play, dance, or other theatrical performance characterized by such wordless storytelling.
3. An ancient Roman theatrical performance in which one actor played all the parts by means of gesture and movement, accompanied by a narrative chorus.
4. A player in such a performance.
3. A traditional British Christmas entertainment for children, usually based on nursery tales and featuring stock characters in costume who sing, dance, and perform skits."
No surprise really, but very funny nonetheless.
PS I'm pantomiming what you can do with your opinion right now.
"And get off that high horse you're sitting on and stop telling "us slashbots" what YOU think we should say.
On any public forum there's going to be noise and if you can't deal with that, and learn to sift through it then perhaps this isn't the place for you, hmm? -we don't want you here-"
More exciting commentary from the "shut up because you disagree with us" crowd.
Why do people struggle so much against enlightenment? Why do you try so hard to remain ignorant?
"The fact that Microsoft funded the "study" means that you MUST look at the assumptions and process."
No it doesn't. Examining the study in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as every other study will reveal its flaws. Nothing else is necessary.
The fact that you think the funder matters means you MUST look up "circumstantial ad hominem", because you used one and don't even know it.
I have no skin in this, but I've always wondered why people like you try so hard to stay ignorant. You're wrong about this, and you're using a common fallacy to suport your opinion.
Instead of insisting you are right, just learn something. It's easier than defending an erroneous position.
When this study was originally posted, many of you slashbots rushed to dismiss it solely on the basis of funding.
When I brought it to your attention that doing so is fallacious, I was modded down into oblivion.
Inevitably the same people will post again, with the same fallacious arguments, claiming that this guy is a shill for MS.
I'll be interested to hear the excuses that are made this time, and I can guarantee that several people will attack this man personally for no reason other than the results of his study.
So how about, instead of relying on old prejudices, we instad attempt to actually examine the research and gauge it on it's own merits.
"...miss out the 'IMHO' and then lambast the guy as if he had claimed to be speaking The Truth."
I said they were nice observations. Please show me where I made them appear as fact.
Or is it possible that you agreed so heartily with the anti-us troller that when I refuted his points you felt you had to pipe up, as though your point was anything other than you being sore about the missed opportunity to down on the US?
But you see, you just described the best Superman stories ever.
The Manchester Black plotline is a good example. In that case, Superman is forced to divest himself of the "boy scout" behavior that so many people dislike. In doing so, you realize that Superman is capable of great violence. Writing a story to evoke that violence from someone who is generally considered to be above it requires skill that few have, but when it's done correctly Superman becomes a very interesting character.
I've heard this before, and while there is truth to it (except the part about nature v nurture making good stories) why waste Superman in such tired plots?
Superman is the most powerful hero in DC canon. Argue if you like, the facts bear it out.
Why would you waste that doing a story that is just as effective when done with normal humans?
"I'm not sure the fact his creator was Canadian is much of an issue when Superman stands for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"."
Of course it does.
Superman is a Candian CARICATURE of "truth, justice and the American way". Representing him as anything else is intellectually dishonest.
"I don't think there's a consistancy beyond a few basic axioms such as generally doing what's determined to be good by the establishment of the day."
No. This is completely wrong, and displays a serious misunderstanding of Superman as a character.
He does not do "what's determined to be good by the establishment" and in fact, his personal convictions clashing with the establishment is often used as a major plot device.
You're clearly not a fan, or else you'd realize how far from the truth your observations are.
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome. Seriously, you examined the study, found some flaws, and at no time relied on lazy thought processes and biases to make your determination.
Out of curiosity, how long did it take? Many of the anti-MS trolls are claiming they don't have time for such analyses.
"it is a legitimate question as to whether the funding of the study was an influence."
No, it isn't. You think it is, and that's why I posted.
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
How many different ways can I post this? How many ways do I have to refute you? Why can't you simply read the definiton, accept you didn't know something, and correct your error?
"You notice how he's responding to everyone here with more crap? He wouldn't feel as though he needed to defend himself if he didn't feel just a little bit like a retard."
Hmm, why don't you post some of this "crap". Shouldn't be too hard with all the replying you've done.
That being said, why is it that the best reply you can come up with is to call me a retard?
Is that the height of your rhetorical acumen?
"So, let's not pretend that SI is some independant company that was called on to do this study one day by Microsoft."
So, you're asking that you be allowed to judge this information based on your biases, and not on its merits?
Why is that necessary, when the methods of evaluating the research without bias are better?
See, that's what you miss. The methods of evaluating research that exist are perfect for detecting flaws. You're just adding excuses for MS to use.
This is the commentary you'll recieve
"Man, that other AC hit the nail on the head: You are a whiny little bitch."
Funny how every AC on the planet decided to post, and all of them made my point for me.
You'll notice the mods for pointing out the hypocrisy.
Newsflash to the mods, this was a quote, not my statement.
But why bother reading it, when you can just throw your mods points away.
"There is nothing fallacious about being wary of Microsoft-funded studies,"
You mean apart from being the definition of a circumstantial ad hominem? Like this?
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
So it is a fallacy. Now produce something that shows otherwise, specifically something other than a post from an AC troll shouting "nuh uh" over and over.
And don't argue by analogy. They're inaccurate, and fail to capture nuance.
You didn't answer the question. Does anything you claim in any way invalidate my point?
The answer of course is no, which is why you had to engage in the ad hominem attack in the first place.
Thank you for making my point for me. Also this
"Your post is pantomime to saying..."
is just too damned funny. I believe you meant "tantmount", because "pantomime" means something else.
"pantomime
1. Communication by means of gesture and facial expression: Some tourists make themselves understood abroad by pantomime.
2.
1. The telling of a story without words, by means of bodily movements, gestures, and facial expressions.
2. A play, dance, or other theatrical performance characterized by such wordless storytelling.
3. An ancient Roman theatrical performance in which one actor played all the parts by means of gesture and movement, accompanied by a narrative chorus.
4. A player in such a performance.
3. A traditional British Christmas entertainment for children, usually based on nursery tales and featuring stock characters in costume who sing, dance, and perform skits."
No surprise really, but very funny nonetheless.
PS I'm pantomiming what you can do with your opinion right now.
As a reply, I'll have you take a look at the "troll" moderation I received.
"And get off that high horse you're sitting on and stop telling "us slashbots" what YOU think we should say.
On any public forum there's going to be noise and if you can't deal with that, and learn to sift through it then perhaps this isn't the place for you, hmm? -we don't want you here-"
More exciting commentary from the "shut up because you disagree with us" crowd.
Why do people struggle so much against enlightenment? Why do you try so hard to remain ignorant?
How funny, the AC gets caught trolling, and tries to act like it was a joke.
I think the more pressing need is to prevent jerkoffs from posting AC. Or just from being stupid generally.
"The fact that Microsoft funded the "study" means that you MUST look at the assumptions and process."
No it doesn't. Examining the study in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as every other study will reveal its flaws. Nothing else is necessary.
The fact that you think the funder matters means you MUST look up "circumstantial ad hominem", because you used one and don't even know it.
I have no skin in this, but I've always wondered why people like you try so hard to stay ignorant. You're wrong about this, and you're using a common fallacy to suport your opinion.
Instead of insisting you are right, just learn something. It's easier than defending an erroneous position.
"Shut the fuck up you whiny little bitch.
This "I'm a victim of teh Slashdot anti-Microsoft mob" was pathetic bullshit years ago.
The world sucks just a little bit more because of pieces of garbage like you. Please do the world a favor and just walk in front of a bus."
This is what happens when you ask the slashbots to hold themselves to higher intellectual standards.
I've never made it a secret I have two logins. Apart from being another fallacious argument, what was your point?
More importantly, does it make my statement any less valid?
"Just because he says he's not a shill does not mean he is not."
If you think he's lying, then be a man and say it, don't hide behind the "MS funded it" fallacy.
When the basis of the character (who was created by a Canadian) is a caricature, then it most definately matters. Fruit of the poisoned vine.
The rest of your post is a weak attempt to justify a weak position.
When this study was originally posted, many of you slashbots rushed to dismiss it solely on the basis of funding.
When I brought it to your attention that doing so is fallacious, I was modded down into oblivion.
Inevitably the same people will post again, with the same fallacious arguments, claiming that this guy is a shill for MS.
I'll be interested to hear the excuses that are made this time, and I can guarantee that several people will attack this man personally for no reason other than the results of his study.
So how about, instead of relying on old prejudices, we instad attempt to actually examine the research and gauge it on it's own merits.
"...miss out the 'IMHO' and then lambast the guy as if he had claimed to be speaking The Truth."
I said they were nice observations. Please show me where I made them appear as fact.
Or is it possible that you agreed so heartily with the anti-us troller that when I refuted his points you felt you had to pipe up, as though your point was anything other than you being sore about the missed opportunity to down on the US?
Or the endless.
But in DC canon, notice I said DC, Superman is consistently represented as the most powerful hero they have.
And there's a version of the saint in normal DC canon, The Crimson Avenger.
Yeah, but that was a story out of continuity, so it's not really representative.
No.
The Specter is not a hero, he is essentially a force of nature, and behaves as such.
But you see, you just described the best Superman stories ever.
The Manchester Black plotline is a good example. In that case, Superman is forced to divest himself of the "boy scout" behavior that so many people dislike. In doing so, you realize that Superman is capable of great violence. Writing a story to evoke that violence from someone who is generally considered to be above it requires skill that few have, but when it's done correctly Superman becomes a very interesting character.
I've heard this before, and while there is truth to it (except the part about nature v nurture making good stories) why waste Superman in such tired plots?
Superman is the most powerful hero in DC canon. Argue if you like, the facts bear it out.
Why would you waste that doing a story that is just as effective when done with normal humans?
Superman is THE "super" hero. Treat him like it.
"I'm not sure the fact his creator was Canadian is much of an issue when Superman stands for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"."
Of course it does.
Superman is a Candian CARICATURE of "truth, justice and the American way". Representing him as anything else is intellectually dishonest.
"I don't think there's a consistancy beyond a few basic axioms such as generally doing what's determined to be good by the establishment of the day."
No. This is completely wrong, and displays a serious misunderstanding of Superman as a character.
He does not do "what's determined to be good by the establishment" and in fact, his personal convictions clashing with the establishment is often used as a major plot device.
You're clearly not a fan, or else you'd realize how far from the truth your observations are.