Qiaochu is questioning the presence of “ad hominem”. This issue doesn’t depend on the worth of the argument whose discussion hypothetically contains the error.
and Taw was attacking Eliezer because Eliezer is so associated with LW, and LW with him, that problems with one will often (at least be taken as) problems with the other. If Eliezer is systematically wrong, so is the sequences, and thereby probably LW too.
Qiaochu is questioning the presence of “ad hominem”. This issue doesn’t depend on the worth of the argument whose discussion hypothetically contains the error.
and Taw was attacking Eliezer because Eliezer is so associated with LW, and LW with him, that problems with one will often (at least be taken as) problems with the other. If Eliezer is systematically wrong, so is the sequences, and thereby probably LW too.