Re: Glass Houses..

  • From: Neil Doane <caine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: technocracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:15:06 -0600

* M.K. Chatterji (chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx), on [07-16-02 19:23], wrote:
> As legal counsel to the class action suit filed by Mac lovers 
> everywhere against the _original_ ad hominem attack, to wit:
> ".. so people forward it along happily as proof of their Macinrighteousness.."

*bzzt* Thank you for playing...

Demonstrating that people forward along a story based on its hype-fluffed 
byline rather than its scientific merit does not mask the logic or divert
attention from the argument that a story is designed to be forwarded by
people based on its hype-fluffed byline rather than its scientific merit. 

In fact, we like to call that evidence.

Would you care to rebut that Jerry looked up the study, studied carefully
its scientific merit, and decided that their methodology proved
conclusively the opinions expressed in the story and then, in an effort to
enlighten the list with irrefutable and valuable scientific evidence, 
forwarded on the story?   If not, then we, as counsel for the defense, 
urge you to save your money and reconsider your suit.

YOUR ad hominem attack went something like this:
        SPEAKER A: "It's wrong to murder someone."
        SPEAKER B: "How can that be true?! YOU murdered someone!"

Notice how the argument itself "It is wrong to murder someone" is diverted
cleanly away and the attention is focused on the speakers qualifications to
make such a statement?  This is how an ad hominem works, the idea is that
listeners will focus on speaker B's qualifications to make the statement,
rather than the logic of the statement itself.  



Confucious say: "My name is actually spelled 'Confucius'."

> we find it useful to remind the perpretrators to never forget where 
> they came from.  (Jerry probably forwarded it in a spirit of levity 
> anyway!)
> Macindignantly,
> -Chat
> Confucious say: Every man likes the smell of his own fart. (Be it 
> Mac, Windows or *nix odors.)
> >Poor attempt at an ad hominem.  Typical Mac Debate Team member. ;)  Chat,
> >argue the arguement, not the person speaking.  :)
> >
> >The arguement remains the same: compare drivers of Land Rover Discovery IIs
> >to <every other automobile>-using counterparts and what do you think you'll
> >find?   Surprise surprise, Land Rover owners are better educated and make
> >more money.  Does that make them a better truck off the trail than
> >everything else?  Not hardly.  I run into $10k Jeep CJs with 8"
> >lifts, axle lockers and 35" Super Swampers and custom suspensions that will
> >trounce my truck over technical rock crawling challenges 8 days a week. 
> >Does it mean my truck is better at carrying people long distances?  Nope,
> >lots of SUVs are more comfortable and have more creature comforts...hell
> >new Explorers have seats that fold themselves up now.   Why am I on my
> >second Discovery II then?   Same reason you're on your Mac probably; I like
> >it.   I don't have any need to justify it with "Land Rovers are the best,
> >look, we're all smarter and richer than you fools!"  I simply dig it.  It
> >looks cool.  It's got off-road prowess that is arguably the best in the SUV
> >class, and big meaty tires.  It takes me camping and climbing.   It's rare
> >enough and stylish enough that people come up to me on the street and
> >compliment me on it out of the blue all the time, which I find increases
> >my purchase satisfaction, not to mention how personable and family-like the
> >Land Rover dealerships are.  There's nothing elitist about it, I bought
> >this 2001 last December used on Ebay with 4k miles on it for $26,000...much
> >cheaper than a new Explorer (base MSRP of the 2002 Explorer XLS is
> >$37,700...the high-end model's MSRP is $46,925) and, by the way,
> >WAAAAY cheaper than a Ford Expedition (with an MSRPs that range from
> >$44,760 to a whopping $52,385!)   I don't see anything run-of-the-mill
> >about Explorers other than perhaps their production numbers.   So what does
> >the fact that Land Rover drivers are richer and better educated prove then
> >anyway?  Nothing.  Nothing at all.  You could do the same thing with
> >Explorer drivers vs <every other automobile> too...or Lexus drivers, or
> >drivers of Mercedes G-wagons, or Hummer drivers.
> >
> >I guess to some, a DII is a status symbol, to me (and to Land Rover owners
> >in just about every other country in the world), it's just a truck that
> >does what I want it to (which, I'd bet, is far more than most SUV owners
> >expect of their vehicles*), still, I'll accept it as one for the sake of
> >this still doesn't change the fact that that study has zero
> >value other than as marketing hook for Cnet News and, obviously, to fuel
> >the Apple hyperbole machine, which seems to crave feces to sling at users
> >of everything else.  Sorry if I seem particularly vociferous; all technical
> >arguments aside, I think the thing that pisses me off most about the story
> >itself is how blatantly manipulative ZDNet and Nielsen, et al. are
> >and how successful they are at being that way. 
> >
> >
> >Neil
> >*
> >
> >
> >
> >* M.K. Chatterji (chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx), on [07-16-02 00:56], wrote:
> >>  Hey Neil,
> >>  Is that kinda like buying an elitist LandRover instead of a
> >>  run-of-the-mill (Windows) Explorer? Sorry, couldn't resist!
> >>  -Chat
> >>
> >>
> >>  >* Jerold Hargis (sigrah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx), on [07-15-02 08:23], wrote:
> >>  >>
> >>  >
> >>  >Wow...what a news flash.
> >>  >
> >>  >"In other news, Neilsen/NetRatings released a study today that 
> >>said that 95%
> >  > >of all persons who own $35,000 gas guzzling car crunching 
> >status-symbol SUVs
> >>  >are better educated and richer than their <all other automobiles>-using
> >>  >counterparts."
> >>  >
> >>  >Pick an expensive status symbol, any expensive status symbol, then
> >  > >compare its users to users of everything else in the same general class
> >>  >and what do you think you'll find?  This study is just more totally
> >>  >meaningless Nielsen marketing drivel.  It has an eye-catching conclusion
> >>  >that is bound to be pounced on by those naive enough to believe that 
> >> those
> >>  >with wealth or academic station choose only the "best" products to invest
> >>  >in.  It's been my experience that the most wealthy and better-educated
> >>  >persons I've ever met tend to spend their money on the most blatant
> >>  >status-symbol crap I've ever seen just because it's shiny, or 
> >> see-through,
> >>  >or has a gold Lexus badge on it, or some other idiotic reason.  Notice 
> >> that
> >>  >the page doesn't even _link_ to the actual study itself?  Has anyone 
> >> who's
> >>  >forwarded this on actually_looked_ at their methodology?  No, of course
> >>  > has a flashy headline, so people forward it along 
> >>happily as proof of
> >>  >their Macinrighteousness and Ian Fried, Staff Writer, CNET 
> >> cackles
> >>  >happily as he realizes his plan to increase his story's hit score 
> >>is working
> >>  >like a champ.
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >Neil
> >>  >
> >>  > -- Rage Against The Machine, "Wake Up"
> >>  >
> >>
> >>

Other related posts: