4 ms·

Pretty sure you already crossed that line. What is interesting about Trunp's canpaign is that he was able to win while spending significantly less than his opp

Pretty sure you already crossed that line. What is interesting about Trunp's canpaign is that he was able to win while spending significantly less than his opponent[1]. Given this, I would say that sama's on point with his quote. BTW, calling the Trump administration "crazy" is kind of a lazy ad hominem, don't you think? [1] - http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/donald-trump-campaign-spending/ http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/donald-trump-campaign-spending...

tptacek 10y ago
"Ad hominem" doesn't mean "argument that hurts someone's feelings".
- lobotryas 10y ago
  You're right. It means: "Rather than [criticizing] a person’s premises or reasoning, one asserts something about the person’s character, ... mental health, likes or dislikes." I'm just surprised the first rhetorical tools you decided to use are emotional appeals and being dismissive of anyone who appears like they're remotely not toeing the party line.
dredmorbius 10y ago
You're misusing ad hominem. Attacking, hypothetically, a president on account of his skin colour is an ad hom. It has no bearing on his governing capability. Noting that a president is not in full possession of his mental capacities is a statement of fact. It bears directly on his governing ability. http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html
- tptacek 10y ago
  Attacking the subject of an argument on account of their skin color is not an ad hominem argument. It's a dumb argument to be sure, but it's not ad hominem. An ad hominem argument is one in which you attempt to dismiss someone else's argument (or their standing to rebut your own argument) based not on any attribute of the argument itself, but on an attribute of the person making the argument. If we're arguing about whether Donald Trump is crazy, and you say he's not, and I say, "you wouldn't know whether he's crazy or not because you're crazy", that's an ad hominem.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Attacking the argument on the basis of skin colour, or any other irrellevant basis: gender, religion, sexuality, are classic ad homs. And, if I do happen to be crazy and that's a legitimate basis for my not being able to assess another's insanity, that's a valid impeachment of my credibility. If I'm not crazy, it's an untruthful assertion on your part.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> BTW, calling the Trump administration "crazy" is kind of a lazy ad hominem, don't you think? It's not ad hominem, but it may be missing that much of the apparent craziness of the Administration is deliberate propaganda strategy (even if that strategy has been chosen as a key one for the Trump camp because Trump himself is actually crazy, and so there is an incentive to find an approach that works with that fact rather than foundering on it.)

tptacek 10y ago

"Ad hominem" doesn't mean "argument that hurts someone's feelings".

lobotryas 10y ago
You're right. It means: "Rather than [criticizing] a person’s premises or reasoning, one asserts something about the person’s character, ... mental health, likes or dislikes." I'm just surprised the first rhetorical tools you decided to use are emotional appeals and being dismissive of anyone who appears like they're remotely not toeing the party line.

dredmorbius 10y ago

You're misusing ad hominem. Attacking, hypothetically, a president on account of his skin colour is an ad hom. It has no bearing on his governing capability. Noting that a president is not in full possession of his mental capacities is a statement of fact. It bears directly on his governing ability. http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html

tptacek 10y ago
Attacking the subject of an argument on account of their skin color is not an ad hominem argument. It's a dumb argument to be sure, but it's not ad hominem. An ad hominem argument is one in which you attempt to dismiss someone else's argument (or their standing to rebut your own argument) based not on any attribute of the argument itself, but on an attribute of the person making the argument. If we're arguing about whether Donald Trump is crazy, and you say he's not, and I say, "you wouldn't know whether he's crazy or not because you're crazy", that's an ad hominem.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Attacking the argument on the basis of skin colour, or any other irrellevant basis: gender, religion, sexuality, are classic ad homs. And, if I do happen to be crazy and that's a legitimate basis for my not being able to assess another's insanity, that's a valid impeachment of my credibility. If I'm not crazy, it's an untruthful assertion on your part.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> BTW, calling the Trump administration "crazy" is kind of a lazy ad hominem, don't you think? It's not ad hominem, but it may be missing that much of the apparent craziness of the Administration is deliberate propaganda strategy (even if that strategy has been chosen as a key one for the Trump camp because Trump himself is actually crazy, and so there is an incentive to find an approach that works with that fact rather than foundering on it.)