6 ms·

> so the reporter is either stupid or disingenuous IMO your comment would be better without the ad-hominems > anyone expressing heterodox opinions is likely t

> so the reporter is either stupid or disingenuous IMO your comment would be better without the ad-hominems > anyone expressing heterodox opinions is likely to write something that a reporter working for a mainstream outlet considers "a creditable reason for negative coverage" I get that you're angry, but this is unsubstantiated by anything you or the article says.

drchickensalad 6y ago
I agree. Stupid and uninformed are quite different.
NhanH 6y ago
Calling someone names is not ad-hominems. Saying that someone is wrong because of the aforementioned names would be ad-hominems, but the GP didn't do that.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  As an aside, the book "The Art of Deception" by Nicolas Capaldi [0] provides a good rundown of some common logical fallacies. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Introduction-Critical-Thinking/dp/159102532X https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Introduction-Critical-T...
- SquishyPanda23 6y ago
  Making a case against an article by calling the reporter names instead of making a case against the arguments in the article is exactly an ad hominem.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> ad-hominems That's not what an ad hominem is. The word you're looking for is "insult".
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  you're the 3rd reply saying this so I don't have much hope of fighting the crowd, but, this is pretty much as ad hominem as it gets. The reasoning provides two and only two options for which flaw the speaker exhibits as evidence for the argument
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    That's a false dichotomy… and it's the conclusion of the (sub)argument, not the evidence.
    - anoncareer0212 6y ago
      por que no los dos? It sounds like we agree, ignoring qualifiers like subconclusion: the lanuage was directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining, the definition of ad hominem is "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." QED.
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
        No it's not. An ad hominem is saying, "your character sucks, therefore your argument must be wrong", or focusing your attack mostly on their character rather than any line of reasoning. Throwing in an insult here and there may be poor form, but that does not an ad hominem make. Especially when the character attack is a result of the line if reasoning you're making. If your whole argument is, "between X and Y and Z, we can see that Politician is corrupt", calling them corrupt is an insult but not an ad hominem.
        anoncareer0212 6y ago
        Its not :/ I'm curious what would happen if you looked up the definition of ad hominem and showed me how the excerpt doesn't match the definition
dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23782204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23782204.

drchickensalad 6y ago

I agree. Stupid and uninformed are quite different.

NhanH 6y ago

Calling someone names is not ad-hominems. Saying that someone is wrong because of the aforementioned names would be ad-hominems, but the GP didn't do that.

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
As an aside, the book "The Art of Deception" by Nicolas Capaldi [0] provides a good rundown of some common logical fallacies. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Introduction-Critical-Thinking/dp/159102532X https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Introduction-Critical-T...
SquishyPanda23 6y ago
Making a case against an article by calling the reporter names instead of making a case against the arguments in the article is exactly an ad hominem.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> ad-hominems That's not what an ad hominem is. The word you're looking for is "insult".

anoncareer0212 6y ago
you're the 3rd reply saying this so I don't have much hope of fighting the crowd, but, this is pretty much as ad hominem as it gets. The reasoning provides two and only two options for which flaw the speaker exhibits as evidence for the argument
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  That's a false dichotomy… and it's the conclusion of the (sub)argument, not the evidence.
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    por que no los dos? It sounds like we agree, ignoring qualifiers like subconclusion: the lanuage was directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining, the definition of ad hominem is "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." QED.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      No it's not. An ad hominem is saying, "your character sucks, therefore your argument must be wrong", or focusing your attack mostly on their character rather than any line of reasoning. Throwing in an insult here and there may be poor form, but that does not an ad hominem make. Especially when the character attack is a result of the line if reasoning you're making. If your whole argument is, "between X and Y and Z, we can see that Politician is corrupt", calling them corrupt is an insult but not an ad hominem.
      - anoncareer0212 6y ago
        Its not :/ I'm curious what would happen if you looked up the definition of ad hominem and showed me how the excerpt doesn't match the definition

dang 6y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23782204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23782204.