3 ms·

>I'm guessing you failed to comprehend any of the material... READ A FUCKING BOOK. If you're so much cleverer than this chap, why have you not felt it necessar

>I'm guessing you failed to comprehend any of the material... READ A FUCKING BOOK. If you're so much cleverer than this chap, why have you not felt it necessary to accompany your ad-hominem attacks with at least a basic level of elucidation? To the chap in question: insightful views clearly stated. I applaud your goals and I hope we can make it happen.

Locke1689 16y ago
Insults do not ad hominem make. Not to say that it was a good comment to begin with.
- danssig 16y ago
  The whole post basically said the author was stupid while neglecting to explicitly point out anything wrong with what he/she said. That's pretty much the definition of ad hominem, no?
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    Not at all. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html As I said, insults are not ad hominem in and of themselves.
- MarkPNeyer 16y ago
  if insults don't make an argument ad hominem, what does?
  - barrkel 16y ago
    "He's an asshole, but he makes a good point." Not ad hominem, not trying to refute the argument, but still an insult. "He's an asshole, and his argument is crap." Not ad hominem, refuting the argument by mere assertion, and an insult. "He's an asshole, so his argument can't be taken seriously." Ad hominem - implying that some characteristic of the person makes his argument flawed; and an insult. "He just wants what's best for his daughter, so his argument can't be taken seriously." Ad hominem (implying bias); but not an insult.
wwz 16y ago
He did not claim the author was an idiot and dismiss his writing because of it. That would be ad hominem. He read and ingested the article and then (rightfully) drew the conclusion that the author is an idiot.
- Natsu 16y ago
  Even if one accepts his conclusion as correct, he did not explain how he came to that conclusion very well. While I can, in fact, guess why he concluded that, I am merely guessing because his reasoning was not explained very well. I really hope that I'm wrong in believing that about half of his problems are with the use of political labels. The very meaning of all political labels is contested: people abuse them constantly for their own purposes, so they do not carry the same meaning for all people. For example, "socialism" can be anything from an oppressive government that ruthlessly punishes success to neighbors banding together to help each other out in times of trouble. Or it can be used as a simple insult. The problem isn't that these words have no meaning, the problem is that people are fighting over what these words should mean. As Lewis Carroll put it, 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

Locke1689 16y ago

Insults do not ad hominem make. Not to say that it was a good comment to begin with.

danssig 16y ago
The whole post basically said the author was stupid while neglecting to explicitly point out anything wrong with what he/she said. That's pretty much the definition of ad hominem, no?
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Not at all. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html As I said, insults are not ad hominem in and of themselves.
MarkPNeyer 16y ago
if insults don't make an argument ad hominem, what does?
- barrkel 16y ago
  "He's an asshole, but he makes a good point." Not ad hominem, not trying to refute the argument, but still an insult. "He's an asshole, and his argument is crap." Not ad hominem, refuting the argument by mere assertion, and an insult. "He's an asshole, so his argument can't be taken seriously." Ad hominem - implying that some characteristic of the person makes his argument flawed; and an insult. "He just wants what's best for his daughter, so his argument can't be taken seriously." Ad hominem (implying bias); but not an insult.

wwz 16y ago

He did not claim the author was an idiot and dismiss his writing because of it. That would be ad hominem. He read and ingested the article and then (rightfully) drew the conclusion that the author is an idiot.

Natsu 16y ago
Even if one accepts his conclusion as correct, he did not explain how he came to that conclusion very well. While I can, in fact, guess why he concluded that, I am merely guessing because his reasoning was not explained very well. I really hope that I'm wrong in believing that about half of his problems are with the use of political labels. The very meaning of all political labels is contested: people abuse them constantly for their own purposes, so they do not carry the same meaning for all people. For example, "socialism" can be anything from an oppressive government that ruthlessly punishes success to neighbors banding together to help each other out in times of trouble. Or it can be used as a simple insult. The problem isn't that these words have no meaning, the problem is that people are fighting over what these words should mean. As Lewis Carroll put it, 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'