To Do or not To Do
Dedicated to approaches to ethics/morality in a secular/atheist environment as well as difficult moral problems in general.
Group Admins
The outing game
This topic contains 67 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
Davis 9 years, 4 months ago.
-
@davis, I gave a more than adequate 2-paragraph example of ad hominem being used by very intelligent and well-educated people NOT in reference to logical argument.
Also:
adjective
1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument. (source)I’m satisfied I’ve explained it well enough by this point and repeating myself and finding more definitions or examples won’t help.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by
Unseen.
I will strive to be the best pompous pedant possible. I will make you proud.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by Davis.
@unseen, I get it despite the example you typed. I think it can be taken as read that you gave definitions that work for you. What is at question, is whether there exists a formal external definition, where we can all point to and agree.
However, defining “ad hominem” as literally anything opposing the person means that a punch on the nose could also be defined as an ad hominem attack.
Sure, sometimes it’s a punch in the nose. Human expression isn’t limited to just words. You can say “fuck you” or you can give them the finger, for example. There’s nothing about an ad hominem attack that limits the ways it can be expressed. A kick in the ass, a punch in the nose, writing “Jew” on their door, or calling a Jew a “kike” are all ad hominem attacks. And I gave you a real world example of such a use as well as a dictionary definition explicating the distinction, which ought to satisfy your request for an external definition. I don’t see that it doesn’t and I doubt if you can tell me why it doesn’t.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by Unseen.
@unseen, I get it despite the example you typed. I think it can be taken as read that you gave definitions that work for you. What is at question, is whether there exists a formal external definition, where we can all point to and agree.
However, defining “ad hominem” as literally anything opposing the person means that a punch on the nose could also be defined as an ad hominem attack.
Sure, sometimes it’s a punch in the nose. Human expression isn’t limited to just words. You can say “fuck you” or you can give them the finger, for example. There’s nothing about an ad hominem attack that limits the ways it can be expressed. A kick in the ass, a punch in the nose, writing “Jew” on their door, or calling a Jew a “kike” are all ad hominem attacks. And I gave you a real world example of such a use as well as a dictionary definition explicating the distinction, which ought to satisfy your request for an external definition. I don’t see that it doesn’t and I doubt if you can tell me why it doesn’t.
Unseen…you have directed us to a real life example that illustrates YOUR idiosyncratic terminology. You have not directed us to any source that demonstrates that these two contrasting definitions of ad hominem fallacy andad hominem attack…are anything more than Unseen’s way of defining it. I’m sorry unseen…you were the one who brought it up, claimed the two definitions are different and obvious, expressed shock that I am not familliar with your terminology…yet refuse to or are incapable of backing it up with any source.
As I’ve said…I like (in principle) these contrasting definitions…but they are yours and I dont know why you dont want to take credit for them.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by Davis.
You have not directed us to any source that demonstrates that these two contrasting definitions of ad hominem fallacy andad hominem attack…are anything more than Unseen’s way of defining it.
Yeah, if you ignore the dictionary reference, which you’re obvio9usly willing to do in order to save your position. Otherwise, explain how the dictionary got it wrong. It has two definitions and one of them has nothing to do with fallacies or arguments.
Also, you call my defintion “idiosyncratic” whereas it is really merely a minority usage, but it is sanctioned by the dictionary.
I’m still a bit perplexed over ‘ad hominem fallacy”. Is that a rebuttal of such an attack? A fallacy is an untruth. Something that is believed in erroneously.
A fallacy isn’t an untruth, as you say, rather it’s a badly constructed or irrelevant argument.
As opposed to a formal fallacy (a badly constructed syllogism, for example), informal fallacies are arguments that, while not being formally flawed, are invalid because of their content. Informal fallacies are often characterized by the fact that their premises simply fail to justify the conclusion. bad generalisations and arguing from ignorance are examples. These are far more numerous.
A so-called “informal fallacy” is simply a bad argument where the argument is basically irrelevant to the conclusion. Is not on its own probative of the conclusion as a well-constructed syllogism is. Take a different informal fallacy than argumentum ad hominem as an example. The argumentum ad populum (the appeal to the crowd or majority), if most people think organic food is better than non-organic food, the fact that a lot of people (and perhaps the majority) would say so isn’t probative. Even if the notion that organic food is better is actually true, it’s not true by virtue of a headcount even of even nutritional experts. If it’s true, it’s true based on demonstrable facts and repeatable tests.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by Unseen.
Also, you call my defintion “idiosyncratic” whereas it is really merely a minority usage, but it is sanctioned by the dictionary.
Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s creative, original and personal idiosyncraticc definitions. Try again.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by Davis.
Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s creative, original and personal idiosyncraticc definitions. Try again.
Saying it doesn’t make it so. I have already replied to this charge.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.