Four fallacies in some current Drupal community thought processes
Of course I couldn't help but be aware of the raging debate that went on today over certain remarks Dries made in his keynote at DrupalCon Copenhagen. My own opinions on the matter aside, sometimes people are just plain wrong. Here are some examples of the incoherent arguments being put forward today.
"People can irrationally take offense at things sometimes; therefore, any time someone takes offense at something, he/she is being irrational". I heard this argument bandied about in various forms today. What it actually boils down to is equivalent to "Sometimes when it's cold it is also raining; therefore, if it's raining, it must be cold".
"You don't have a right to criticise the behaviour of individual members of a group unless you are a member of that group". How this 'argument' was actually presented was along the lines of "Those criticising Dries's comments as sexist were from outside of the core Drupal community; they need to be one of us before they can criticise us". I don't need to be a member of a group to criticise the actions of that group.
"Person X is generally awesome and wonderful; therefore Person X is beyond reproach no matter what he/she ever does or says". Uh, what?
"You don't have the right to criticise the behaviour of someone whose gender is the opposite of that for which you have a sexual preference". Or something. Did anyone else manage to parse the last paragraph of that nugget of wisdom at http://highervisibilitywebsites.com/how-dare-they-sexism-police-drupal-c... and figure out what he was actually trying to say? I'd be intrigued to hear other interpretations.
Seriously though, I shudder at the thought of the kind of code that would follow from such a poor grasp of logic as is demonstrated by some of the remarks I've come across today :-/