On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:07, Sean wrote: > Please look closer, what I did was lay out a fact. I didn't make > any conclusion. If you think there was an implication of something > in my statement you're wrong. It was simply an email to show an > interesting connection that might be helpful for someone googling > the thread later to know. Now which logical fallacy is it that > you just committed? It matters not that what you said was factual. You avoided dealing at all with the content of the argument by pointing out that someone who might have a part in creating the content could be biased. Your chain of association is exceptionally weak since Jane Winn (one of seven listed site contributors) isn't even necessarily the author of the article in question. Her association with the law firm does not imply that she is a shill of one of the law firm's founding members. There is no evidence (at least here) that Preston Gates is using the law firm and it's (perhaps tenuous) association with the law school at the University of Washington as a center for propagandizing his son's business philosophy. You responded to a well-placed and relevant article by drawing a convoluted line to someone (Bill Gates) who is undoubtedly biased in his personal opinions on the subject. You in effect attempted to reduce the merit of the article by stating that Gates had something to do with it. What you did not do was to deal with the content of the article. This is a classic genetic fallacy. And, by the way, I don't believe that I committed a logical fallacy in my previous response. If I did, please name it.
