But not when assuming they are Rand's followers?
Because you criticized the parent poster exactly for making such an assumption (whether he made it or not)...
I go on quite at length as to why I believe that he did. Feel free to disagree with me, so long as you explain why.
On the contrary, the problem with a natural language is that is imprecise, vague and ambiguous. This is why it's so easy to allow assumptions to creep into one's interpretation of it. A substantial part of your interpretation of my comments is based on your own assumptions, a lot of which do not hold up. I'm not inclined to address all of them -- for the same reasons I will elaborate when I address your interpretation of my having "time to kill" -- but I will try to address a few I found interesting.
> It's pretty obvious what the ad hominem is if you use this quote straight after someone quotes Ayn Rand: it is targeted at the poster and implies he is, himself, immature, living in a dream world, meaning one should dismiss his arguments without consideration.
I don't know if the poster is an objectivist. The poster remembered a quote from "Atlas Shrugged" that resonated with them and posted it in a comment, which does not necessarily imply that the poster is a fan of "Atlas Shrugged" or Ayn Rand in general; I could probably find myself in a situation where I could consider a comment from Meyer's "Twilight" relevant, without changing my opinion that "Twilight" is an utter piece of crap. I used the quote I posted to express my opinion of "Atlas Shrugged". Which brings me to the next assumption I would like to address:
> It is extremely rare to attack a work using appeal to emotion without attacking the author.
To paraphrase, instead of quoting: You keep mentioning that fallacy; I do not think it means what you think it means. "Appeal to emotion" is a logical fallacy that consists of trying to support your argument with pathos instead of logos. Not every form of discourse is an argument. Mine certainly wasn't and I suspect John's wasn't either. As I mentioned before, I was stating an opinion -- to wit, that I find "Atlas Shrugged" sorely lacking in certain aspects and that I think that staunch objectivists have certain flaws -- not refuting a point made by the poster. As a matter of fact, I did state in another comment that I agree, to a degree, with the poster's point, but dislike the quote he used to make that point.
> This really means "you are not ordinarily worth engaging with, because [see above], but since I have nothing to do, I will". This is reinforcing the ad hominem by introducing superiority and dismissiveness. "Here, child, let me explain."
You're right about one thing here: my reply to you did, indeed, contain an intentional ad hominem. That doesn't mean that the assumption underlying your interpretation of "time to kill" is correct. Rather than implying that objectivists, as a whole group, are not worth engaging with, I was implying that I ordinarily would not find a comment like yours worth replying to. Is that dismissive? It certainly is. Does it imply a feeling of superiority? Not at all. Just because I don't think that, under normal circumstances, I can produce more worth by spending my time on other things rather than replying to that particular kind of argument, it doesn't mean I'm superior (or feel like it) to you. Rather, it means that I don't think I'm good enough at arguing to produce any net worth by engaging in the discussion of a comment like yours.
> This one is on par with telling a new black acquaintance about your black friends, or sending them news about black people doing great things. I should not need to explain it, but I will.
As a quick aside, I don't have any assumption to address here; I just wanted to point out that I have no idea what that whole "black news" analogy is supposed to mean; you might have tried to explain it, but I failed to understand it.
But you do delve a lot into the ad hominem in that part of my sentence, so I should probably address that. Yes, I assumed from your comment that you're an objectivist and that, as an objectivist, you share the flaws I ascribe to the whole group. No, that assumption is not based on any hard facts, but my experience with similar comments and, as such, might very well be incorrect. Yes, I do imply that being an objectivist would explain why you misintepreted my original comment as an ad hominem. Yes, I did intentionally include an ad hominem in a comment that points out that my previous comment was not an ad hominem.
In closing, many of the assumptions on which you based your interpretations are wrong. It's not that I believe that they're wrong -- most of them are factually wrong, because most are assumptions about what I meant to say or was trying to say. The reason I point this out at all is because you're trying to engage in a highly rational argument out of a highly emotional motivation and I suspect those emotions are creeping into your assumptions and invalidating your efforts. The reason I suspect that is because I used to do the same thing: get riled up about something I read and then try to deconstruct the offending text with what I believe were purely rational arguments. In hindsight, it never worked out, even when I believed I "won" the discussion.
Regardless of the context of HN "and its sophisticated audience and level of discussion", sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a person might state the equivalent of "I think 'Atlas Shrugged' is crap and adults who wholeheartedly buy into it should know better" and it might not be a slippery slope to a dystopian future where all rational argument has been replaced by Trump/Clinton debates; sometimes a person's sense of humor is impolite to a certain audience and the best reply is more along the lines of "Dude, don't be a jerk" rather than "The test results say you are a horrible person; we weren't even testing for that." ;)
> On the contrary, the problem with a natural language is that is imprecise, vague and ambiguous.
These are attributes of natural language, but I do not see how their existence invalidates my argument. Natural language is ambiguous because words are like variables that can take different values depending on the situation. Any advanced society necessarily requires the shared context and for the other side to make assumptions about what is not said in order to communicate at the very high bandwidth required to deal with the complexity of life.
For example, imagine two buddies meeting at the bar after a hard day of work. One of them sips his beer then says "man... that was a long, long day." He does not literally mean that the day contained more work hours than usual. He is bonding by expressing a hint of shared feelings (that they are satisfied with a hard day's work and can begin relaxing) to his colleague with whom he just shared an experience. I just provided you with context with the early part of the story: bar, long day, beer... which allows you to understand what he says.
And this is why I need to make assumptions in order to further understanding and discussion:
> it's so easy to allow assumptions to creep into one's interpretation of it
> I don't know if the poster is an objectivist
It does not matter if you know or not. Every word posted on a public forum is an attempt at convincing somebody of something, a means of spreading a message or communicating a feeling (as in the case above - although these comments are relatively rare on HN). A brief one liner has to be very well chosen in order to be effective, as it assumes a good read on people's mindsets, the context, and their background in order to have the intended effect. My comment was that the way your comment read was an attack on more than the book.
> "Appeal to emotion" is a logical fallacy
The way I understand it, appeal to emotion is a family of fallacies used to advance arguments without taking a reasoned path, with a subconscious or conscious goal to do so.
> Not every form of discourse is an argument. Mine certainly wasn't and I suspect John's wasn't either.
This is where we disagree. Anything you post here will be read by others and might influence their thinking. Whether or not you want to, you send a message with your comments. Whether or not you meant to have an impact, your words will have that impact. "I didn't mean to hurt X" is not an excuse for inconsiderateness.
> Rather, it means that I don't think I'm good enough at arguing to produce any net worth by engaging in the discussion of a comment like yours.
A different opinion is ALWAYS welcome. The only way to learn is to put oneself in the other's point of view and see if there is something to it...
> out of a highly emotional motivation
What would you guess is my motivation? Most highly emotional "motivation" of irrational arguments is linked to belonging to a tribe and having to accept its arguments in order to further the power of its voice (as members acting in concert predictably are exponentially more powerful as a result). My understanding is that you believe/d that I belong to the "Objectivist" tribe. As I mentioned elsewhere, I have no interest in debating ownership or not to a tribe; I think such arguments are automatic ways to engage discussion onto emotional ground and away from what you might call "fact".
For example, you might debate the idea of taxing pollution. You can argue about it from the point of view of Tragedy of the Commons in economics and trying to establish some kind of net welfare equation, or you can argue against it by saying "you pinko commie" and for it by saying "you fascist tax evader from the 1%". The latter form of argumentation is extremely noxious to civilisation, which is why I oppose it.
> Regardless of the context of HN "and its sophisticated audience and level of discussion", sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a person might state the equivalent of "I think 'Atlas Shrugged' is crap and adults who wholeheartedly buy into it should know better" and it might not be a slippery slope to a dystopian future where all rational argument has been replaced by Trump/Clinton debates; sometimes a person's sense of humor is impolite to a certain audience and the best reply is more along the lines of "Dude, don't be a jerk" rather than "The test results say you are a horrible person; we weren't even testing for that." ;)
Saying that Scott Adams has been known to be irrational is at best tangential to the example he gives to qualify whether the Trump and Clinton campaigns are using emotional manipulation, especially ad hominem attacks, to achieve their respective goals.
It's an appeal to emotion built upon an ad hominem: you use your attack on Scott Adams' ability to reason coupled with an association fallacy [1] to attack me in order to invalidate my line of argument.
Specifically: Scott Adams is irrational; you presented an example by Scott Adams; you therefore agree with an irrational man; this makes you irrational; your arguments are therefore irrational; let's not bother debating your irrational arguments.
I might be wrong, so attack the flaws in my reasoning, not me or the author or my examples.
It is perfectly fair to say "Scott Adams makes claims about himself which cannot charitably be interpreted as rational or reasonable, therefore appealing to Scott Adams (hint: appeal to authority!) when talking about a desire for more rational and reasoned and impersonal debate does not lend credibility to your argument".
I'll now explain what I mean by taking both your quote and your reply and dissecting how I interpret them:
> "childish fantasy" "lifelong obsession" "unbelievable heroes" "emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood" "unable to deal with the real world"
The argument here goes: people who like Ayn Rand are immature and live in a dream world, which means you should not listen to what they have to say because it bears little relation with the real world. It's pretty obvious what the ad hominem is if you use this quote straight after someone quotes Ayn Rand: it is targeted at the poster and implies he is, himself, immature, living in a dream world, meaning one should dismiss his arguments without consideration.
> I was tempted to reply with a "found the objectivist"
This one is on par with telling a new black acquaintance about your black friends, or sending them news about black people doing great things. I should not need to explain it, but I will.
First, your original comment, as explained above, painted all "Objectivists" (Ayn Rand "fans", for those unaware of her writings; she groups her ideas under the term Objectivism) as immature dreamers whose arguments should be dismissed.
Then, you hint at what is on your mind, much as the man sending "black news" to his black acquaintance is hinting pretty strongly at the only thing he can think about looking at him. "I was tempted" might work in a bar discussion as a sufficient disclaimer, but HN is sophisticated and sensitive to such "fake disclaimers" (although those who point them out can be tarred with the "SJW" brush).
Your line of argument here is "I am stating that you are an Objectivist, therefore your arguments are not worth listening to because Objectivists are immature/unable to deal with the real world/see above". This is the literal definition of ad hominem, even if you hinted instead of outright stating. The context - HN, and its sophisticated audience and level of discussion - make it intentional and the equivalent of stating it outright.
You reinforce this line with the end of the sentence:
> but I'm waiting for a build, so I have time to kill
This really means "you are not ordinarily worth engaging with, because [see above], but since I have nothing to do, I will". This is reinforcing the ad hominem by introducing superiority and dismissiveness. "Here, child, let me explain."
> The quote I used doesn't attack the author, it attacks the work
It is extremely rare to attack a work using appeal to emotion without attacking the author. Usually, the best way to clear the doubt is to spell it out. You didn't. In fact, the brevity and context of the use of the quote, coupled with the fact it explicitly attacks Ayn Rand, imply the opposite.
> If you want to criticize it, you would do better to point out that the quote I used is not constructive criticism.
I did criticise it. Pointing out that appeal to emotion is not a valid line of argument is a constructive criticism. I have expanded on the idea earlier in this reply, but the core of it is that appeal to emotion attempts to use emotion to make you skip logical steps and accept a conclusion you might not have ordinarily.
> humorous quips rarely are
Ridicule is one of the most effective appeals to emotion. I could probably point 10 examples from the first 15 minutes of the Presidential debate last week. Even the words used by both candidates are carefully chosen (see [1]). Your particular quip is only humorous if you belong to the tribe that likes to auto-ridicule Ayn Rand readers (without having ever read the books or even the arguments), and otherwise serves to silence those unwilling to take the social penalty of speaking out against it.
Lest you think it is personal, it is not. Hell, I know where you're coming from - in a previous era, I was banned for several weeks from an internet forum for calling someone an "internet redneck" for presenting Republican-favouring arguments.
I am simply fed up with the rising market share of appeal to emotion in all kinds of domains from advertising (thank you uBlock, Privacy Badger etc. for making the internet useable for me again) all the way up to politics and the legislative process. This is my little contribution to fighting against this trend. And yes, the use of the word "fighting" is itself an appeal to emotion.
[1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147998060931/the-dark-and-rotte... - "The Dark and Rotten Election" - Scott Adams