> So, kind of like Ayn Rand, which had a known history of blind following entourage?

Without any sort of quantification, that is a very hollow argument. All systems of ideas, and originators of such systems, have a history of "blind following".

Saying that Objectivists are less critical of their own and competing ideas strikes me as pretty laughable, especially when compared to the more popular ideas - like Marxism. Maybe Ayn just doesn't look as good on a T-shirt as Che...

There are many ways to categorize and define argumentational fallacies, and so it is often difficult and disingenuous to argue over exactly which fallacy is violated by a particular utterance.

But since this is blown up since I last looked at it, why not take a moment to try to diagnose this.

It is not in fact an 'ad hominem', as you said, since an ad hominem attacks an argument by attacking a person (or group). Though it is, to me, perfectly fine to call it that, since that is the result, the second quote does not in fact attack any argument directly.

It is a response to the act of quoting Rand, rather than to anything specific that Rand was quoted as saying.

Secondly it is also not an 'appeal to emotion', since an appeal to emotion is again directed at making a particular argument, in this case by making people feel instead of think. This again does not fit the second quote, because it does not make any specific argument at all.

From what I can tell, the most descriptive term we can find for what makes this quote by 'John Rogers' so upsetting, as evidenced by the amount of discussion below and above, is that it is a 'smear'.

Its nature is that it does not attack the argument made by the quote it is posted in reply to, but instead attacks anyone who might believe, and quote, anything from that book, presumably including the OP.

To quote Wikipedia [1]:

> A [smear] is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character.

...

> Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual with the aim of undermining their credibility.

> Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip magazines. Even when the facts behind a smear campaign are demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before the truth is known.

> Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question and onto the a specific individual or group. The target of the smear typically must focus on correcting the false information rather than on the original issue.

> Smear tactics are considered by many to be a low, disingenuous form of discourse; they are nevertheless very common.

So, while this is not strictly one of the traditional logical fallacies, I think it is nevertheless clearly a bad form of discourse, and frankly inappropriate.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign

> Thankfully, that was not an ad hominem. It was a quote against a particular BOOK.

I've explained in detail why I disagree with you on this.

I see you have engaged into the discussion further, for which I thank you as this is a lot of fun (and I mean this genuinely, in a "thank you for taking the time and effort to engage into a discussion with me" way). Although this is the top comment reply right now, I'll continue the conversation on the other thread.

> So, kind of like Ayn Rand, which had a known history of blind following entourage?

Do I need to expand on why this, in this context, is ad hominem coupled with an inappropriate use of the association fallacy?

FWIW I happen to agree with your statement to an extent (that there exists a bit of a cult, and that it resembles blind following), but disagree with its relevance to this line of discussion, or the assumption I half get the impression of that all people who reference Ayn Rand are blind followers.

I personally know hundreds of people who have taken value from Ayn Rand's writings without agreeing with her on everything. Note that I am not sure whether that is what you are implying, but I'm addressing the possibility that it is.

It's only humorous if you agree with it. Replace the two books with ones you like and you have a formulaic insult. Save it for elsewhere.

The problem is that language is much higher bandwidth than the information content of the words. Context and implicit shared knowledge play a huge part and should be taken into account when assessing someone's words. Both the quote, your original use of it, and your reply to my comment are ad hominem attacks where the attack is mostly in what is left unsaid but understood by the relatively smart, well read, culturally aware audience of HN.

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

Whilst I appreciate the recommendation, I do not understand its relevance in the context of this thread.

What I am reading in your comment is an implication:

- that by attacking the use of a quote to ridicule those who have read Ayn Rand and attempt to present her ideas, I am myself promoting Ayn Rand's ideas,

- and that the other ideas of Ayn Rand's (beyond those illustrated by the metaphors used in Atlas Shrugged that lead to this quote, which is very specifically about government use of bad laws for manipulation) are relevant to this discussion.

This would lead for a need for a response to Ayn Rand's body of ideas as relates to "economic and common-sense grounds" (which I assume is not related to the quote by the grandparent), as opposed to specifically the original post or the direction I have put the thread in.

Is this the correct interpretation?

If so, I disagree that Ayn Rand's entire body of ideas is relevant to the discussion of the specific case put forward by her metaphor and narrative in the context of this quote and discussion.

An example of this kind of association fallacy: Heinlein promoted incest in his later novels (e.g. Lazarus Long's relationship with his mother post time travel). Incest has negative connotations in modern society. It would be possible to use an appeal to emotion: "Heinlein promotes incest! You like Heinlein, so I can't listen to your argument, since you promote incest." It would, however, be manipulation to do so. A similar line of argument is used to attack certain religions today (I've even seen some French politicians try to paint Muslims as barbarians by pointing out a few incidents of goats slaughtered ritually in the bath tubs of social housing projects).

Every writer, every body of work has flaws. The beauty of discussing ideas is to hash out a better set of values and ideas to better model and understand the world we live in. There are even valid uses of appeal to emotion, when emotion is used to transmit higher information content than can be done via contextual awareness and shared culture, or to transmit complex ideas quickly. You could even argue that's a large reason for the existence of art (much of which is paid propaganda, other propaganda of the artist's ideas spread using appeal to emotion).

To use a writer's flaws to censor their work out of discussion is a subtler, more powerful version of Orwell's 1984 book censorship. I hold that all books should be discussed, even the "unpalatable" ones.

> considering that the quote was the entirety of the post, I don't see how you can then claim that responding with a second quote discrediting the first is in some way responding to the person and not the argument

The first quote laid out a case using a narrative as a metaphor. It explicitly states its position, and as such is an appropriate use of a quote.

The second quote is entirely composed of appeals to emotion and its sole purpose is to ridicule the author of the first quote as well as any readers who might agree with it. As such it is not an appropriate response.

An appropriate response would have first established the premise of the first quote, then argued for or against it.

> "mid-20th century" "21st century"

The age of an idea has no bearing on its quality. To an extent, humanity refines and builds on ideas over time but the basis of Western civilisation dates from Antiquity. To take your specific date range, this post is typed on a browser, operating system, machine, and global network that all date from ideas from the mid 20th century which themselves build on a few centuries of reasoning.

I personally have no problem with the John Rogers quote as a response to my comment since I don't think the poster meant to attack me as a person (at least I hope so :) ). After all it's not like I made some broad statement endorsing Ayn Rand.

Funnily enough the xkcd-comic you linked really made an impression on me when it was first posted, since at the time I was having that exact thought almost every day. XKCD showed me how foolish that was and I was and am really thankful for that. (Even though my false sense of superiority was pretty comforting)

They're excellent. You should read both, critically. You should likely throw in the Fountainhead as well....and for good measure should likely also read Exodus, 1914, The Service: The Memoirs of General Reinhard Gehlen, and likely more fun stuff like the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers. The history, passion, and often hypocrisy found are enlightening. Ayn R. had wonderful insights into the human condition...as a previous author had said, the solutions were often a bit twisted. If you want really interesting, dig into Beyond Good and Evil. I read all of Nietzsche while I was in officer basic a long time ago. Very interesting stuff. I guess my point is, don't discount literature because you disagree with it.

Edit: Apparently I'm not as cultured as I thought. I didn't know Machiavelli had his own version of "The Art of War". Obviously, my previous comment was unqualified.

However, I did read "The Prince" and I think there's a lot most can learn from it. While I find the majority of the book reprehensible, there are many powerful people in our society that seem to think of it as a bible / instruction manual. Given the fact that such ideas still play a significant role in our society; I feel it is worthwhile to learn about them.

That's like saying "I've never eaten lettuce, but I know I don't like it just from looking at it." What a weird, sheltered approach to life; you should broaden your horizons a bit and read, say, Mein Kampf. Developing critical skills is essential for anyone and it's totally reasonable to read something even when you know you will disagree.

EDIT: I as well assumed you were referring to Sun Tzu. I can't speak to whether my comments hold for Machiavelli's at all.

If you've lumped "The Art of War" into the same category in your mind as Ayn Rand's writings, I suggest you to read it. You may find yourself pleasantly surprised. Aside from being both commonly cited as influential (in greater or lesser unfortunate ways), there's really about zero similarity between the two.

You don't trust your ability to critically evaluate the things you read?

It is phrases and words, accumulated to symbols, that form our thoughts. A whole network is being built upon it which will then be your subconcious mind. It is interesting how much of such phrases one might used to get a simple point across. Like an oyster hiding their pearl. To get to the pearl you need to be well aware so you are not trapped in a shell that is not yours.