|
Post by phludowin on Aug 29, 2018 20:15:13 GMT
I simply said that those who understand logical fallacies generally believe that those who make ad hominem comments have little or nothing left to say but insults. This is a true statement in my opinion. I was not saying that the use of logical fallacies in and of itself meant somebody had lost an argument. One can litter an argument with ad homs and still be making valid points. There are people with great intelligence that use ad homs to great effect. But generally insults are used by people with average intelligence or lower intelligence due to a lack of anything left to say that comes from being informed and able to contribute meaningful comments. What’s funny about this is that after acknowledging that this is only your opinion, you are essentially using a form of ad hominem yourself to try to justify your argument about how it suggests lower intelligence. Not quite. An ad hominem fallacy is when you attack the person who made the argument instead of the argument; or when you dismiss an argument because the person who made it is not recommendable. In this case, the "arguments" geode talks about are insults. I believe that they are usually not worth being rationally argued with. Dismissing them with an ad hominem (the insulter is stupid, therefore I don't have to care about the insults) is enough. Because insults are weak arguments, they can be debunked with weak arguments; like ad hominems. There is no evidence that your opinion relating attacks to “intelligence” is correct, which essentially makes it an attack on anyone else who attacks you. That’s not very sound reasoning! Maybe not, but in the case of insults it's all the insulters deserve. And probably all they can process in their tiny brains.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Aug 29, 2018 20:30:36 GMT
when your nancy pants align with a right wing monkey dance
looking at the bigger picture of a tyrant tooling a democracy it truly isn't hard to see that if this is what your calling manifest destiny then perhaps some of the monkeys should never have dropped out of the trees.
sjw 08/29/18 inspired at this very moment in time by oh those right wing floridians and their never ending antics.
from the 'bigot series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 29, 2018 21:03:24 GMT
What’s funny about this is that after acknowledging that this is only your opinion, you are essentially using a form of ad hominem yourself to try to justify your argument about how it suggests lower intelligence. Not quite. An ad hominem fallacy is when you attack the person who made the argument instead of the argument; or when you dismiss an argument because the person who made it is not recommendable. The first part of the sentence is accurate; the second part is where you went off the rails a bit. Dismissing an argument (for any reason) is not an ad hominem, it’s just dismissing an argument. Dismissing and attacking are two different things. And based on the actual definition of ad hominem, attacking the intelligence of someone else merely because they used a fallacious argument is in itself an ad hominem, as there is no direct correlation between the use of this type of fallacy and intelligence. In this case, the "arguments" geode talks about are insults. I believe that they are usually not worth being rationally argued with. Dismissing them with an ad hominem (the insulter is stupid, therefore I don't have to care about the insults) is enough. Because insults are weak arguments, they can be debunked with weak arguments; like ad hominems. You literally just contradicting your previous argument. Here, you are acknowledging that what I stated the first time (that he is in fact using an ad hominem) is indeed correct. There is no evidence that your opinion relating attacks to “intelligence” is correct, which essentially makes it an attack on anyone else who attacks you. That’s not very sound reasoning! Maybe not, but in the case of insults it's all the insulters deserve. And probably all they can process in their tiny brains. I’m not interested in what you or geode thinks anyone else “deserves” because what who deserves is subjective and frankly wasn’t what I addressed. I only addressed the hypocrisy and irony of using an ad hominem attack in his condemnation of ad homonim attacks. Whether you think it’s deserved or not is an entirely separate discussion.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 29, 2018 21:20:08 GMT
Not quite. An ad hominem fallacy is when you attack the person who made the argument instead of the argument; or when you dismiss an argument because the person who made it is not recommendable. The first part of the sentence is accurate; the second part is where you went off the rails a bit. Dismissing an argument (for any reason) is not an ad hominem, it’s just dismissing an argument. If your only basis for dismissing the argument is that you find something objecionable about the person who made the argument, then it's an ad hominem. I'll give an example of an ad hominem. A: Richard Wagner was a great composer. B: Well, you also believe the Earth is flat, so you are off the rocker. Therefore Richard Wagner was a shitty composer. B is making an Ad Hominem. If person A is Adolf Hitler, and instead of Flat Earth we condemn Hitler for his politics, then the argument also becomes the type of ad hominem known as "Reductio ad Hitlerum". In this case, the "arguments" geode talks about are insults. I believe that they are usually not worth being rationally argued with. Dismissing them with an ad hominem (the insulter is stupid, therefore I don't have to care about the insults) is enough. Because insults are weak arguments, they can be debunked with weak arguments; like ad hominems. You literally just contradicting your previous argument. I did? My previous argument was that an ad hominem is when you attack the person and not the argument. If someone insults me, and I reply with "You're stupid, therefore I don't care", how is this not attacking the insulter? It's stooping to the insulter's level by using an ad hominem; but trying to rationally debunk the insults with facts, evidence and logical reasoning could be casting pearls before swine, and a waste of time. Here, you are acknowledging that what I stated the first time (that he is in fact using an ad hominem) is indeed correct. I don't know what argument you are talking about; and I don't know if I care. Maybe not, but in the case of insults it's all the insulters deserve. And probably all they can process in their tiny brains. I’m not interested in what you or geode thinks anyone else “deserves” because what who deserves is subjective and frankly wasn’t what I addressed. I only addressed the hypocrisy and irony of using an ad hominem attack in his condemnation of ad homonim attacks. Whether you think it’s deserved or not is an entirely separate discussion. I still don't know what ad hominem geode supposedly did.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 29, 2018 21:23:47 GMT
Most of the time on these boards I tend to address the whole board, not just the person to whom I reply. That however is not how most people do it. They are not addressing the "public" they are addressing the individual and in that case there can be (I didn't say always is) a good and logical reason to address the problem the individual has in relation to the topic. It can help them understand why they keep making the same wrong move. In a recent prolonged exchange over what the "appeal to nature fallacy" actually meant, I had considerable difficulty explaining that nature already has informed public policy and will continue to do so quite logically, citing several examples. The problem is with amateurs who do not understand the rules and yet depend on them to claim a victory. On these boards it is usually the person calling a rule who is failing logic, not the other way around. I recommend that you (generally, not you, geode especially) do not depend on rules for your victories, at least not until you understand how complicated they really can get. No one has yet argued that the examples I cited should not be decided because nature dictated. That is in fact the good reason they were decided. Interesting but irrelevent to the discussion I last rendered, as I have not relied upon a rule to make my point, but have instead offered an observation that I and many others have seen in conversations, whether they have been on message boards or elsewhere. As I already mentioned, I tend to address the board rather than particular individuals. I think my comment is relevant to the general topic. I have found that the people who cite "logical fallacies" in these amateur settings are usually the ones whose reasoning is flawed. And perhaps I misunderstood you. Did you mean that citing an ad hominem is an ad hominem in itself? In a rather round about way I suppose you could say that.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 29, 2018 23:16:39 GMT
The first part of the sentence is accurate; the second part is where you went off the rails a bit. Dismissing an argument (for any reason) is not an ad hominem, it’s just dismissing an argument. If your only basis for dismissing the argument is that you find something objecionable about the person who made the argument, then it's an ad hominem. No it isn’t. That’s not an “ad hominem”, that is a dismissal of an argument for an invalid reason. An ad hominem is an attack on someone making an argument. That’s what it means! Whether they dismiss someone else’s argument or not is irrelevant. It’s only an ad hominem if one engages in an attack of their opponent. I'll give an example of an ad hominem. A: Richard Wagner was a great composer. B: Well, you also believe the Earth is flat, so you are off the rocker. Therefore Richard Wagner was a shitty composer. Yes...that is an ATTACK on the person making the argument. That is an ad hominem! The dismissal of the argument is completely irrelevant. It’s the manner and reason in which the argument is being dismissed that determines if it’s an ad hominem. If I told the person that Richard Wagner is a shitty composer because his music sounds like shit, I am dismissing his argument that he was a “great composer”. But that is not an ad hominem. In order for the dismissal to be an ad hominem, I have to actually attack you instead of the argument. You literally just contradicting your previous argument. I did? My previous argument was that an ad hominem is when you attack the person and not the argument. Yes, but you also said that geode didn’t use one when he said that a person who uses them is of lower intelligence, and then you essentially acknowledged that he did, and in fact defended his use of it when you said: “Dismissing them with an ad hominem (the insulter is stupid, therefore I don't have to care about the insults) is enough. Because insults are weak arguments, they can be debunked with weak arguments; like ad hominems.” So now you are committing another fallacy called “kettle logic”. You can’t say that geode did not use an ad hominem in one sentence, and then say it’s okay for him to use it because the person he was using it against deserved it. And if you admit that an ad hominem is fallacious logic, then you cannot later justify the use of it (in any circumstance), otherwise your argument completely breaks down as unreasonable and unsound. If someone insults me, and I reply with "You're stupid, therefore I don't care", how is this not attacking the insulter? It is, and that is the point that I am making. You’re just not following me. What I’m saying is that ^this is exactly what geode just did in this thread! He stated that people who attack in that way are of “lower intelligence”, which is attacking the insulter and therefore an ad hominem. What part about this are you not understanding? It's stooping to the insulter's level by using an ad hominem; I agree! Thank you. Or it could be compelling enough to inspire change. Who knows? The point is, it is the option that paints you in a better light compared to the other option (returning ad hominem for ad hominem) in which the hypocrisy throws away your credibility. I’m not interested in what you or geode thinks anyone else “deserves” because what who deserves is subjective and frankly wasn’t what I addressed. I only addressed the hypocrisy and irony of using an ad hominem attack in his condemnation of ad homonim attacks. Whether you think it’s deserved or not is an entirely separate discussion. I still don't know what ad hominem geode supposedly did. I realize that.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 31, 2018 12:55:48 GMT
I agree completely that most call-out threads are cries for attention even more often than just attempted insults. I guess I have not been the only regular to step away from this board? The problems you have identified are a large part of the reason I left. Yeah, although we've always had shit-posters to one degree or other, even on the old IMDB. Another part of it was a simple decline in people who actually discussed religion or spiritual stuff. Yes, the off-topic content became far too prevelent even if Fleetspam is excluded.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 1, 2018 5:35:39 GMT
Interesting but irrelevent to the discussion I last rendered, as I have not relied upon a rule to make my point, but have instead offered an observation that I and many others have seen in conversations, whether they have been on message boards or elsewhere. As I already mentioned, I tend to address the board rather than particular individuals. I think my comment is relevant to the general topic. I have found that the people who cite "logical fallacies" in these amateur settings are usually the ones whose reasoning is flawed. And perhaps I misunderstood you. Did you mean that citing an ad hominem is an ad hominem in itself? In a rather round about way I suppose you could say that. I said your comments were irrelevant to what I had last written, to which you were apparently making a reply. You can make all the comments you wish about a general topic.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 1, 2018 5:41:51 GMT
The first part of the sentence is accurate; the second part is where you went off the rails a bit. Dismissing an argument (for any reason) is not an ad hominem, it’s just dismissing an argument. If your only basis for dismissing the argument is that you find something objecionable about the person who made the argument, then it's an ad hominem. I'll give an example of an ad hominem. A: Richard Wagner was a great composer. B: Well, you also believe the Earth is flat, so you are off the rocker. Therefore Richard Wagner was a shitty composer. B is making an Ad Hominem. If person A is Adolf Hitler, and instead of Flat Earth we condemn Hitler for his politics, then the argument also becomes the type of ad hominem known as "Reductio ad Hitlerum". You literally just contradicting your previous argument. I did? My previous argument was that an ad hominem is when you attack the person and not the argument. If someone insults me, and I reply with "You're stupid, therefore I don't care", how is this not attacking the insulter? It's stooping to the insulter's level by using an ad hominem; but trying to rationally debunk the insults with facts, evidence and logical reasoning could be casting pearls before swine, and a waste of time. Here, you are acknowledging that what I stated the first time (that he is in fact using an ad hominem) is indeed correct. I don't know what argument you are talking about; and I don't know if I care. I’m not interested in what you or geode thinks anyone else “deserves” because what who deserves is subjective and frankly wasn’t what I addressed. I only addressed the hypocrisy and irony of using an ad hominem attack in his condemnation of ad homonim attacks. Whether you think it’s deserved or not is an entirely separate discussion. I still don't know what ad hominem geode supposedly did. I of course did not use an ad hominem in what I wrote. Anybody who claims I did does not understand the definition of what this entails.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 1, 2018 8:25:43 GMT
I still don't know what ad hominem geode supposedly did. I realize that. And you still failed to point it out. After geode 's last post, I believe that the best explanation for why I don't know what ad hominem geode used, is: He didn't use any. I am now going to make an ad hominem. You: Geode made an ad hominem. Me: You called this thread a call-out thread. Since you're wrong about the definition of call-out threads you are also wrong about the definition of ad hominems. The fact that you were wrong about this thread being a call-out thread has no bearing about your opinion on ad hominems. On the other hand, as was mentioned on this thread: Just because the person defending an argument used a fallacy to defend the argument does not invalidate the argument. So I'm asking: What ad hominem did geode supposedly make?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 13:41:36 GMT
Most call-out threads are basically ad hominem attacks. As it is generally known by those who understand logical fallacies, when people resort to using an ad hominem approach they have essentially lost the argument and have nothing left to do but offer insults. Not being able to "hold one's own" in a discussion can be due to a lack of knowledge, a lack of intelligence, or both a lack of knowledge and intelligence. Yes, there are people who are intelligent who have taken using insults to an art form showing great wit when making them. Of course Don Rickles comes to mind, but also Oscar Wilde, Oscar Levant, Dorothy Parker, Winston Churchill and others. These all were very intelligent people. But have we really seen people possessing their intelligence and fine-tuned wit starting call-out threads here? I don't remember seeing evidence of this, and if anything those starting them here are generally exposing their limited cognitive abilities. Is this aimed at one particular person on this board?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 2, 2018 8:44:18 GMT
Most call-out threads are basically ad hominem attacks. As it is generally known by those who understand logical fallacies, when people resort to using an ad hominem approach they have essentially lost the argument and have nothing left to do but offer insults. Not being able to "hold one's own" in a discussion can be due to a lack of knowledge, a lack of intelligence, or both a lack of knowledge and intelligence. Yes, there are people who are intelligent who have taken using insults to an art form showing great wit when making them. Of course Don Rickles comes to mind, but also Oscar Wilde, Oscar Levant, Dorothy Parker, Winston Churchill and others. These all were very intelligent people. But have we really seen people possessing their intelligence and fine-tuned wit starting call-out threads here? I don't remember seeing evidence of this, and if anything those starting them here are generally exposing their limited cognitive abilities. Is this aimed at one particular person on this board? There was a thread "All Christians Should Die" (now strangely vanished) and if it was still around I would ask if it was aimed at one particular person on this board. Would the answer be, "No, it is just aimed at Christians?" This thread is aimed at anyone who starts a call-out thread. I posted something similar a couple of times on the old IMDb board. Was I reminded of how inappropriate I thought call-out threads by a couple that were present when I posted this? I think that this is probably true.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 4, 2018 7:22:33 GMT
I realize that. And you still failed to point it out. After geode 's last post, I believe that the best explanation for why I don't know what ad hominem geode used, is: He didn't use any. I am now going to make an ad hominem. You: Geode made an ad hominem. Me: You called this thread a call-out thread. Since you're wrong about the definition of call-out threads you are also wrong about the definition of ad hominems. The fact that you were wrong about this thread being a call-out thread has no bearing about your opinion on ad hominems. On the other hand, as was mentioned on this thread: Just because the person defending an argument used a fallacy to defend the argument does not invalidate the argument. So I'm asking: What ad hominem did geode supposedly make?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 10, 2018 11:26:53 GMT
^Sure is triggered for someone who is NOT calling-out anyone, and NOT using ad hominem, and NOT crying out for attention, and NOT looking to rehash old arguments.
|
|