[B-Con]

That is an interesting question, because so many people claim to have read his post yet have no idea what he actually said. Please re-read it.

The post title was an exaggeration, like almost all of his blog post titles are. If you actually read the content of the post, you realize that he clearly wasn't actually saying.

[zedshaw]

I did read it, and he's wrong. That's why I wrote mine.

[laughinghan]

You did read it, and he's wrong, and that's why you wrote an article that did not respond to his (supposedly wrong) arguments at all, and instead presented an ad hominem attack saying he "[gets] off on making beginners feel like they're worthless for attempting something"?

[Smudge]

Not all insults are ad hominem. For this to be ad hominem, he would have to be saying that the reason Attwood was wrong was because he "gets off on making beginners feel like they're worthless..."

Here's a quick illustration:

Ad Hominem: Jeff Attwood gets off on being an ass. Therefore he is wrong.

Not Ad Hominem: Jeff Attwood gets off on being an ass. Incidentally, he is also wrong.

[xanados]

Technically you may be right, if one is in a debate club perhaps. In a real world debate the close position of two elements, especially when one is composed of emotional content, draws a strong implied link between the two points even if they are separate. It's not a compelling defense to say that everyone should be an expert at logical debate and should know to ignore the insults one heaps on one's opponents.

[Locke1689]

You need to learn the difference between insults and logical fallacies. This has nothing to do with whether or not insults are bad in a discussion (they almost always are), it has to do with the poster citing the ad hominem fallacy incorrectly because they think using Latin words will strengthen their point.

[rsanchez1]

We should start a movement to persuade everyone to learn logical fallacies. Then we'll get some other guy begging everyone to stop following the fad and not learn logical fallacies. After that, we'll get a third guy writing a response saying the other guy is wrong. Finally, we'll get a lot of people illogically applying logical fallacies, and we'll get them then!

Seriously, understanding of logical fallacies seems to be in very short supply around HN. If I didn't know any better I would think I'm over at Reddit.

[rrreese]

Ad hominem (argumentum ad hominem) is a specific term of art to describe arguments that try to counter a thesis by attacking the character, qualifications, standing etc of the person claiming the thesis.

It does not mean an argument in which a person insults the person claiming the thesis. Insults rarely add anything to an argument but that is a different matter.

Also note that an ad hominem doesn't need to be insulting - it could be a very polite statement such as "This argument is incorrect because Mr Atwood is unqualified to discuss matters of education as he is not himself an educator". This is not really insulting (though I would argue that Jeff is in a way an educator) but is still an ad hominem.

[efuquen]

"Never listen to people who try to make beginners feel like losers."

I didn't see anywhere in Jeff's post where he was saying he wanted to make beginners look like losers. What he is saying is that it isn't necessary for everyone to learn how to code, that a lot of people seem to have a passing interest in it but aren't really serious about it. His example is the fact that Mike Bloomberg is using it as a cheap political stunt, that his time as Mayor would be better spent accomplishing other things. Now, that's somewhat a matter of opinion, maybe Mike Bloomberg really is serious about wanting to learn how to code, but somehow I doubt it. This is a far cry from Jeff wanting to make people feel like losers.

"He's telling other people's kids to not learn to code. He's telling adults who want to improve their lives, or just learn something new. He's telling people from other professions that no, programming won't help them. Why? Why would Jeff tell people to quit and just let the professionals do this? Because of resentment."

That's a complete assumption, in no way backed by anything Jeff said. I didn't see any "resentment" in that post, but you can read into anything you want and make any wild assumptions you want, as long as it makes your post more sensational.

He's not saying that your's or anyone's kids shouldn't learn how to code, he's saying that he doesn't see it as a basic skill we should be teaching children, along with reading, writing, and math. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I get where he is coming from and I'm not going to grossly exaggerated Jeff's position just to make my point.

So, yah, maybe Jeff is wrong, but you're post certainly didn't address what he was actually saying.

[rsanchez1]

Well what's wrong with people having a passing interest in it learning it?

His example seems to be more him having a bone to pick with Mayor Bloomberg. Maybe, having a mayor that extols the virtue of learning something will help improve student absenteeism. Who knows?

[bryze]

I think we need no more a concise declaration of your bias than this.

[mathetic]

When you say it like that it sounds it is bad to be biased in this particular situation.

First of all it sounds much better than "I read it, he is correct. This is why I wrote mine." considering that he is refuting the idea presented.

Being biased is simply being opinionated and luckily Zed Shaw's opinion is that everyone should/can learn code. This is why he has free books, which actually teach some programming to everyone.

[efuquen]

The thing being argued here isn't whether Jeff or Zed is right, the thing being argued is that Zed Shaw grossly misinterpreted what Jeff was saying, which he did.