3 ms·

Ad hominem

by jayliew 9y ago

Ad hominem

AJRF 9y ago
Nice strawman. His one-sidedness clouds his commentary.
- tomsthumb 9y ago
  It does not, on its own, make him wrong in this case. I don't feel like putting in the effort to figure out if this presentation of "strawman" is meta-ironic in that it is itself a strawman, but I can't tell that it isn't.
- jayliew 9y ago
  Your comment, which I responded to as "ad hominem" (please look it up), literally has zero substance to challenge the author's position. That, is my case, that that you committed an ad hominem fallacy. Now, you said I straw-man'd you. Care to substantiate?
  - AJRF 9y ago
    > "please look it up" Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear
Nomentatus 9y ago
Reference to personal characteristics that go to the probity (honesty), memory or capacity for logical thought of the speaker are NOT an ad hominen fallacy. "He is a pathological liar, convicted of perjury, you can't trust his 'facts.'" is NOT an ad hominem fallacy. "He is a rapist/teenager/Republican, I wouldn't put any faith in his numbers." WOULD BE an ad hominem fallacy. To quote Wikipedia, which you may not have read before typing, despite your advising others to "look it up": "However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself." I.E. the personal characteristics cited do impune the argument. A consistent history of blind rejection or enthusiasm is a characteristic that does impune the veracity of the argument, since the world isn't really like that. (Proof not necessary since relevance is what is in question.) That is, manic-depressive characteristics on the part of the speaker obviously do affect the probability that an statement or argument is true and raising them as relevant is thus not fallacious. False, quite possibly, but not fallacious or irrelevant. Yours is a now very common misapprehension of "ad hominem", I've contradicted it here before. I am unsure where it comes from, except perhaps an exaggerated modern "amour propre," since this criticism can be used to deflect various forms of personal criticisms even when directly to the point. I may be wrong but I think this error is quite modern, I don't remember encountering it decades ago, ever. But then, this technical phrase may not have been in common parlance at that time. I would give you this much: a false call of "ad hominem" is technically a red herring (via a false claim), rather than a straw man; since straw men arguments distort, then reject/disprove/falsify others claims; whereas you outright rejected their claim as irrelevant (rather than untrue) with no distortion of the meaning of the other's words (only distortion of the relevance of his words or the meaning of your own words - namely ad hominem) being necessary for that trick.
- jayliew 9y ago
  So, if a dishonest person with dementia says that water is wet, and you wanted to challenge his/her position because it is your personal opinion that water isn't wet, you just ad hominem them, and say that it is not ad hominem? I will give you this much. Your length response sound like you're a pretty educated person.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    C'mon. You're not even trying, now. This is mere caviling. If you believe that attaching a fallacy to an argument proves it false, that's your lone belief, not something anyone else has signed up for.
    - jayliew 9y ago
      If you believe that ad hominem is not a fallacy, then all the best to ya
      - Nomentatus 9y ago
        Not always, not every reference to another human speaker can be simply booted from the discussion, see Wikipedia as stated above. Or take some academic philosophy courses if you're still in doubt.

Ad hominem

AJRF 9y ago

Nice strawman. His one-sidedness clouds his commentary.

tomsthumb 9y ago
It does not, on its own, make him wrong in this case. I don't feel like putting in the effort to figure out if this presentation of "strawman" is meta-ironic in that it is itself a strawman, but I can't tell that it isn't.
jayliew 9y ago
Your comment, which I responded to as "ad hominem" (please look it up), literally has zero substance to challenge the author's position. That, is my case, that that you committed an ad hominem fallacy. Now, you said I straw-man'd you. Care to substantiate?
- AJRF 9y ago
  > "please look it up" Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear

Nomentatus 9y ago

Reference to personal characteristics that go to the probity (honesty), memory or capacity for logical thought of the speaker are NOT an ad hominen fallacy. "He is a pathological liar, convicted of perjury, you can't trust his 'facts.'" is NOT an ad hominem fallacy. "He is a rapist/teenager/Republican, I wouldn't put any faith in his numbers." WOULD BE an ad hominem fallacy. To quote Wikipedia, which you may not have read before typing, despite your advising others to "look it up": "However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself." I.E. the personal characteristics cited do impune the argument. A consistent history of blind rejection or enthusiasm is a characteristic that does impune the veracity of the argument, since the world isn't really like that. (Proof not necessary since relevance is what is in question.) That is, manic-depressive characteristics on the part of the speaker obviously do affect the probability that an statement or argument is true and raising them as relevant is thus not fallacious. False, quite possibly, but not fallacious or irrelevant. Yours is a now very common misapprehension of "ad hominem", I've contradicted it here before. I am unsure where it comes from, except perhaps an exaggerated modern "amour propre," since this criticism can be used to deflect various forms of personal criticisms even when directly to the point. I may be wrong but I think this error is quite modern, I don't remember encountering it decades ago, ever. But then, this technical phrase may not have been in common parlance at that time. I would give you this much: a false call of "ad hominem" is technically a red herring (via a false claim), rather than a straw man; since straw men arguments distort, then reject/disprove/falsify others claims; whereas you outright rejected their claim as irrelevant (rather than untrue) with no distortion of the meaning of the other's words (only distortion of the relevance of his words or the meaning of your own words - namely ad hominem) being necessary for that trick.

jayliew 9y ago
So, if a dishonest person with dementia says that water is wet, and you wanted to challenge his/her position because it is your personal opinion that water isn't wet, you just ad hominem them, and say that it is not ad hominem? I will give you this much. Your length response sound like you're a pretty educated person.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  C'mon. You're not even trying, now. This is mere caviling. If you believe that attaching a fallacy to an argument proves it false, that's your lone belief, not something anyone else has signed up for.
  - jayliew 9y ago
    If you believe that ad hominem is not a fallacy, then all the best to ya
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      Not always, not every reference to another human speaker can be simply booted from the discussion, see Wikipedia as stated above. Or take some academic philosophy courses if you're still in doubt.