From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933472Ab3GXAvI (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:51:08 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]:60754 "EHLO mail-lb0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758195Ab3GXAvG (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:51:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1EC23D2B9975384993D85B5DB93AAE8861AA8D@sisaex01sj> References: <1373944014.17876.255.camel@gandalf.local.home> <51E4BFA9.1030600@zytor.com> <1373991399.6458.6.camel@gandalf.local.home> <51E59F79.1040903@zytor.com> <20130717144043.GA16513@xanatos> <20130719120841.GH26716@gmail.com> <1EC23D2B9975384993D85B5DB93AAE8861AA8D@sisaex01sj> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:51:03 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML From: Felipe Contreras To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Darren Hart , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Willy Tarreau , stable , Chris Ball , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On 07/20/2013 12:36 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> I think you need more than "hope" to change one of the fundamental >> rules of LKML; be open and honest, even if that means expressing your >> opinion in a way that others might consider offensive and colorful. > > Logical fallacy type: bifurcation. You can be open and honest without > being offensive or abusive. You are mistaken, that is not what the false dichotomy fallacy means. I'm not saying you have to be A (open and honest), or B (polite), and that you can't be both, if that's what you arguing (which seems to be the case), you are wrong, and to argue against that position would be a straw man fallacy. Your mistaken fallacy seems to be that you think one can *always* be both A (open and honest), and B (polite), I'm not sure if there's a name for that fallacy, but you don't provide any evidence for that claim. And even supposing that such an obvious fallacy (that one can *always* be both open and honest, and polite) was true, the fact that something *can* be done, doesn't mean it *should* be done. -- Felipe Contreras From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1EC23D2B9975384993D85B5DB93AAE8861AA8D@sisaex01sj> References: <1373944014.17876.255.camel@gandalf.local.home> <51E4BFA9.1030600@zytor.com> <1373991399.6458.6.camel@gandalf.local.home> <51E59F79.1040903@zytor.com> <20130717144043.GA16513@xanatos> <20130719120841.GH26716@gmail.com> <1EC23D2B9975384993D85B5DB93AAE8861AA8D@sisaex01sj> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:51:03 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML From: Felipe Contreras To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Darren Hart , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Willy Tarreau , stable , Chris Ball , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On 07/20/2013 12:36 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> I think you need more than "hope" to change one of the fundamental >> rules of LKML; be open and honest, even if that means expressing your >> opinion in a way that others might consider offensive and colorful. > > Logical fallacy type: bifurcation. You can be open and honest without > being offensive or abusive. You are mistaken, that is not what the false dichotomy fallacy means. I'm not saying you have to be A (open and honest), or B (polite), and that you can't be both, if that's what you arguing (which seems to be the case), you are wrong, and to argue against that position would be a straw man fallacy. Your mistaken fallacy seems to be that you think one can *always* be both A (open and honest), and B (polite), I'm not sure if there's a name for that fallacy, but you don't provide any evidence for that claim. And even supposing that such an obvious fallacy (that one can *always* be both open and honest, and polite) was true, the fact that something *can* be done, doesn't mean it *should* be done. -- Felipe Contreras