Beginner needs advice

[Ian Kelly]

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:33 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777 at charter.net> wrote:
> In this present case the straw-man was not "me," rather the straw-man was
> the python language itself. You chose a code-snippet (one small puny dangle
> that doesn't prove a thing) and used it to speak for the entire language!
>  As though one code-block is enough to demonstrate compatibility for the
> entire language in all of its nuances and details.  To prove something
> positive with a test case requires that you provide *all* test cases, or
> that you provide an algorithm that accounts for *all* test cases... you
> cannot prove compatibility with a code-snippet.

You have just misrepresented Steven's argument, which is rather ironic
considering that you're the one who brought up straw-men.  Steven did
not use one code snippet to demonstrate that Python 2 and Python 3 are
fully compatible.  The code snippet merely demonstrated that Python 2
and 3 are not "totally incompatible" as you had claimed.

I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean
condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that
you tossed out as a joke.  I don't know whether you're sincere or
backpedaling, but in any case this assertion is flatly ludicrous.
Following your definition, *nothing* is compatible with anything else.
 If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
different things that are compatible.

And finally, would you please just knock off the fallacy crap?  If you
assert something, and another person counters with a straw-man, and
you respond by dismissing his argument as a straw-man, your response
is valid.  But if you assert something, and another person makes a
counter-argument, to whom you invariably respond by crying
"Straw-man!" or "False analogy!" (or in your case, "Analogy!"; you
seem to view all analogies as false) regardless of what that person
actually said -- even if that person does *sometimes* actually commit
those fallacies -- then you yourself are employing an ad hominem.