To Do or not To Do

The outing game

This topic contains 67 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  Davis 5 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 68 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1197

    Unseen
    Participant

    @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 5 years, 4 months ago by  Unseen.
    #1199

    Davis
    Moderator

    I will strive to be the best pompous pedant possible. I will make you proud.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    #1204

    Strega
    Moderator

    @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.

    #1207

    Unseen
    Participant

    @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 5 years, 4 months ago by  Unseen.
    #1219

    Strega
    Moderator

    @unseen. So when my dog greets me and jumps up, it’s an ad hominem greeting? When I get a birthday card, it’s an ad hominem message?

    #1226

    Davis
    Moderator

    @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 5 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    #1243

    Unseen
    Participant

    @unseen. So when my dog greets me and jumps up, it’s an ad hominem greeting? When I get a birthday card, it’s an ad hominem message?

    If the intent is an attack, otherwise no. That’s how ad hominem has come to be used. Either as referring to a fallacy on the one hand or an attack on the other.

    #1244

    Unseen
    Participant

    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.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by  Unseen.
    #1249

    Strega
    Moderator

    @unseen, so I can have an ad hominem dog bite? I know it’s an extreme, I’m using it to test your basis of definition.

    I actually understand the term “ad hominem attack”. It’s when you attack the person rather than the subject matter. I think we’re all good with that, and it makes sense.

    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.

    The attack – Mike is an idiot so his opinion on global warming is idiotic and dismissable.

    The fallacy – global warming isn’t real because Mike told me it was, and he’s an idiot. Is that right?

    #1250

    Unseen
    Participant

    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 5 years, 4 months ago by  Unseen.
    #1252

    Unseen
    Participant

    The attack – Mike is an idiot so his opinion on global warming is idiotic and dismissable.

    The fallacy – global warming isn’t real because Mike told me it was, and he’s an idiot. Is that right?

    I failed to address these. You got the first one wrong. Just take off the conclusion part (“so…”) and you have it. It’s an attack on the person not what he says.

    #1256

    Gallup’s Mirror
    Participant

    You got the first one wrong. Just take off the conclusion part (“so…”) and you have it. It’s an attack on the person not what he says.

    Without the explicit or implicit claim that the “attack” is relevant to the target’s position or the topic at hand there is no logical fallacy. It also doesn’t have to be an attack; it could be a compliment.

    “Mike won a Nobel Peace Prize so his opinion about war is useless.”

    Or if you insist:

    “Mike won the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    From the OED: “(Of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining”.

    #1261

    Unseen
    Participant

    It also doesn’t have to be an attack; it could be a compliment.

    Of course.

    #1533

    Davis
    Moderator

    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 5 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    #1540

    Unseen
    Participant

    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 5 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 68 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.