4 ms·
Ad hom attacks aren't fallacious when relating to the credibility of statements and when they are backed up by reasoning. Blatant name calling isn't welcome, b
by bduerst 10y ago
Ad hom attacks aren't fallacious when relating to the credibility of statements and when they are backed up by reasoning.
Blatant name calling isn't welcome, but saying something is naive and then taking the time to explain why and without malice shouldn't be censored.
- leereeves 10y agoThe reasoning is valuable, the ad hom attack is not.
- CPLX 10y agoI wrote the post you are criticizing as ad hominem. It is not that, because it doesn't have any hominem in it. My post leads with "The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's hopelessly naive." The problem with [THE ARGUED POINT] is that [CRITICISM], because of [SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIVE METAPHOR] is the opposite of an ad hom attack. Ad hom attacks say the problem with [PERSON] is [INSULT] or similar.
- leereeves 10y agoNaive means: > (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you implied that grellas lacked experience or wisdom. It could reasonably be taken as ad hom.
- CPLX 10y agoI have no idea if the internet commenter I replied to is naive. I will however stand by my opinion that "extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people" is a hopelessly naive statement. There is a difference. I do admire and respect the civil tone of discussion on HN very much, and am pretty sure I am contributing to it here.
- leereeves 10y agoThat's only a portion of the statement. The full quote was: > Extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people in that they come in all shapes and sizes.