3 ms·

>This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this: >u r a fag!!!!!!!!!! >But it's important to re

>This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this: >u r a fag!!!!!!!!!! >But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like >The author is a self-important dilettante. >is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag." I completely disagree. One is a direct verbal attack, the other can very possibly be a reasonable assertion. If it's followed by a fair explanation, all the better.

chrischen 17y ago
If it's followed by a fair explanation, then it's no longer the same argument. I think his point is that if you just say "The author is a self-important dilettante," then that by itself is no different from "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!"
- jimmyjim 17y ago
  I think still there is a fundamental difference between calling someone a "fag" vs. a "dilettante". Calling someone a "dilettante" isn't quite name-calling. And if the subject at hand has a history of being a sham, then I don't think it even warrants the effort to spend the time writing an explanation.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    I can see where you're coming from, in that "dilettante" may be less outlandish than calling someone a "fag." It's a more refined description, but in the end both are still most likely unfounded claims. In most cases you are probably calling the person a "dilettante" or "self-important" without really knowing the person. And chances are such labels will be emotionally, rather than rationally motivated. So it's true that in some cases the claim can be legitimate, but given our setting in an almost anonymous internet discussion place, it's unlikely that those claims are ever founded on reason. I think that was Paul's point: that calling someone a "fag" vs "self-important dilettante" are similar in their usually unfounded bases. You're correct in that there is a fundamental difference because calling someone a "fag" is not only unfounded, it's also derogatory as well as irrelevant to any rational argument (irrelevant, unless it is an argument about their sexuality).
wgj 17y ago
The author is a self-important dilettante. ...is designed to insult or discredit the author without any reference to the actual argument (or any objective facts.) If the goal is to move the discussion forward, how can this be "a reasonable assertion"?
ajross 17y ago
Bollocks. I reasonably assert that you're an idiot.
CodeMage 17y ago
Both are examples of "ad hominem" fallacy. The fact that one is spelled better than the other (and uses a fancy word too) does not make it any less of a fallacy. Fallacy is not an argument, which was Paul's point.

chrischen 17y ago

If it's followed by a fair explanation, then it's no longer the same argument. I think his point is that if you just say "The author is a self-important dilettante," then that by itself is no different from "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!"

jimmyjim 17y ago
I think still there is a fundamental difference between calling someone a "fag" vs. a "dilettante". Calling someone a "dilettante" isn't quite name-calling. And if the subject at hand has a history of being a sham, then I don't think it even warrants the effort to spend the time writing an explanation.
- chrischen 17y ago
  I can see where you're coming from, in that "dilettante" may be less outlandish than calling someone a "fag." It's a more refined description, but in the end both are still most likely unfounded claims. In most cases you are probably calling the person a "dilettante" or "self-important" without really knowing the person. And chances are such labels will be emotionally, rather than rationally motivated. So it's true that in some cases the claim can be legitimate, but given our setting in an almost anonymous internet discussion place, it's unlikely that those claims are ever founded on reason. I think that was Paul's point: that calling someone a "fag" vs "self-important dilettante" are similar in their usually unfounded bases. You're correct in that there is a fundamental difference because calling someone a "fag" is not only unfounded, it's also derogatory as well as irrelevant to any rational argument (irrelevant, unless it is an argument about their sexuality).

wgj 17y ago

The author is a self-important dilettante. ...is designed to insult or discredit the author without any reference to the actual argument (or any objective facts.) If the goal is to move the discussion forward, how can this be "a reasonable assertion"?

ajross 17y ago

Bollocks. I reasonably assert that you're an idiot.

CodeMage 17y ago

Both are examples of "ad hominem" fallacy. The fact that one is spelled better than the other (and uses a fancy word too) does not make it any less of a fallacy. Fallacy is not an argument, which was Paul's point.