Er. That would be an Ad Hominem attack if saying people are straight was an attack. It is a statement, just like saying "most women have long hair" is a statement and not a judgment.
Now, you may opine that it does not reflect the facts. It just seems to me that:
- a majority of commenters on the forum disagree with Eich's position
- as gays form a fairly small part of the population at large, and I'm not aware of any overrepresentation of gay people on HN, it follows that the majority of commenters are straight
Ergo, it's likely that most people protesting against Eich's appointment on HN are straight, and that it's not a gay conspiracy.
I'm not sure where you saw a "wrong side" to my argument either. For the record, I disagree with his position, but I also recognize that it is shared by the majority of the population of California, and that it is entirely possible that for a man like Eich, 1000$ represents pocket change. In any case, I'm of the mind of letting his actions as CEO speak for him.
Yeah I agree with you really. It just seemed odd to throw the irrelevant detail in about 'its probably all those straight guys causing the problem', sounded like a slam. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
Now, you may opine that it does not reflect the facts. It just seems to me that:
- a majority of commenters on the forum disagree with Eich's position
- as gays form a fairly small part of the population at large, and I'm not aware of any overrepresentation of gay people on HN, it follows that the majority of commenters are straight
Ergo, it's likely that most people protesting against Eich's appointment on HN are straight, and that it's not a gay conspiracy.
I'm not sure where you saw a "wrong side" to my argument either. For the record, I disagree with his position, but I also recognize that it is shared by the majority of the population of California, and that it is entirely possible that for a man like Eich, 1000$ represents pocket change. In any case, I'm of the mind of letting his actions as CEO speak for him.