4 ms·

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

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
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
        That's not how it works. It's on the party making the assertion to have proof. So far, the "yes that's an ad hominem" side seems disinclined to provide any evidence or engage directly. Anyway, from Wikipedia's explanation: > Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". Note that "rather" in the explanation. It's a matter of substituting character attack for reasoning critique. "Based on their shitty reasoning, I conclude that they're real dumb" is not an ad hominem in the least, it does not fit the definition, the causation has to go the other way.
        anoncareer0212 6y ago
        Please try to be civil, things like "That's not how this works, you give the definition and example" and "So far, the "yes that's an ad hominem" side seems disinclined to provide any evidence or engage directly." are factually untrue and ad hominem, we're downthread from me doing exactly that. I'll hang up and listen.
        TulliusCicero 6y ago
        Okay, I'll try to refrain from that where it's unwarranted. That's a fair critique. Though you didn't address my argument here. You seem to be thinking that that definition means that a character attack at literally any point in an essay or report constitutes an ad hominem. It's not: the 'rather' implies a substitution, where the character attack essentially is the reasoning used. If I do an investigative report on a campaigning politician, detailing that he once beat his wife, neglected his kids, cheated on his taxes, etc. and then concluded that "his morals appear to be rather severely in question", that's a character attack, but it's not an ad hominem.
        6y ago
tripletao 6y ago
So what's the third option? Do you believe that Alexander deleted his blog because he was trying to hide something, as the sentence I quoted implies? If so, why did he take an action that he must have known would draw wide public attention (from a wide audience, including people much less sympathetic to his opinions than his usual readers), while leaving the content available with only slight inconvenience? You can read his blog on the Internet Archive now, and cherry-pick whatever fragments you want. As another poster notes, the IA does allow webmasters to request removal, but he doesn't seem to have done so.
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  This whole thing flummoxes me and honestly I don't care enough to speculate on it. I do believe that's a reasonable explanation for his behavior, and most definitely reasonable enough that I don't need to accuse the writer of bad faith. When I first heard about it on Twitter two weeks, there was a ton of angry mob behavior and unfounded assertions over a non-anonymous writer's claim that he was going to be made non-anonymous by a newspaper article. I have an mob budget, and can't afford anymore on this topic until the non-anonymous writer is named by the newspaper article, and I'll give him a 2 for 1 at that point and keep pretending his name isn't readily available and hear out his argument further.
  - tripletao 6y ago
    Since you don't propose a third possibility, it seems like you just didn't like my language? If I wrote "the reporter is either unaware that widely-available backups of the blog exist (despite apparently quoting from one in this story), or trying to create public speculation that something damaging about Alexander might be true when he knows it to be false", then would you agree with me?
    - anoncareer0212 6y ago
      > it seems like you just didn't like my language? yes, that is why this thread exists. grandparent of grandparent telling you that you would have won significantly more hearts and minds by skipping the attacks > Since you don't propose a 3rd possibility n.b. off the top, the whole problem here is you're reasoning about this like you're omniscient because theres a finite # of logic gates, but we're human and know there isn't a finite number of possibilities, so it's nails on a chalkboard in what otherwise is a coherent argument I affirmed the 3rd (n.b. of many!) possibility you offered already, so I won't waste your time by reaffirming it
lliamander 6y ago
"You are a bad person, therefore you are argument is wrong" is an ad-hominem. "Your argument is wrong, therefore you are a bad person" is not.

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
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      That's not how it works. It's on the party making the assertion to have proof. So far, the "yes that's an ad hominem" side seems disinclined to provide any evidence or engage directly. Anyway, from Wikipedia's explanation: > Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". Note that "rather" in the explanation. It's a matter of substituting character attack for reasoning critique. "Based on their shitty reasoning, I conclude that they're real dumb" is not an ad hominem in the least, it does not fit the definition, the causation has to go the other way.
      - anoncareer0212 6y ago
        Please try to be civil, things like "That's not how this works, you give the definition and example" and "So far, the "yes that's an ad hominem" side seems disinclined to provide any evidence or engage directly." are factually untrue and ad hominem, we're downthread from me doing exactly that. I'll hang up and listen.
        TulliusCicero 6y ago
        Okay, I'll try to refrain from that where it's unwarranted. That's a fair critique. Though you didn't address my argument here. You seem to be thinking that that definition means that a character attack at literally any point in an essay or report constitutes an ad hominem. It's not: the 'rather' implies a substitution, where the character attack essentially is the reasoning used. If I do an investigative report on a campaigning politician, detailing that he once beat his wife, neglected his kids, cheated on his taxes, etc. and then concluded that "his morals appear to be rather severely in question", that's a character attack, but it's not an ad hominem.
        6y ago

tripletao 6y ago

So what's the third option? Do you believe that Alexander deleted his blog because he was trying to hide something, as the sentence I quoted implies? If so, why did he take an action that he must have known would draw wide public attention (from a wide audience, including people much less sympathetic to his opinions than his usual readers), while leaving the content available with only slight inconvenience? You can read his blog on the Internet Archive now, and cherry-pick whatever fragments you want. As another poster notes, the IA does allow webmasters to request removal, but he doesn't seem to have done so.

anoncareer0212 6y ago
This whole thing flummoxes me and honestly I don't care enough to speculate on it. I do believe that's a reasonable explanation for his behavior, and most definitely reasonable enough that I don't need to accuse the writer of bad faith. When I first heard about it on Twitter two weeks, there was a ton of angry mob behavior and unfounded assertions over a non-anonymous writer's claim that he was going to be made non-anonymous by a newspaper article. I have an mob budget, and can't afford anymore on this topic until the non-anonymous writer is named by the newspaper article, and I'll give him a 2 for 1 at that point and keep pretending his name isn't readily available and hear out his argument further.
- tripletao 6y ago
  Since you don't propose a third possibility, it seems like you just didn't like my language? If I wrote "the reporter is either unaware that widely-available backups of the blog exist (despite apparently quoting from one in this story), or trying to create public speculation that something damaging about Alexander might be true when he knows it to be false", then would you agree with me?
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    > it seems like you just didn't like my language? yes, that is why this thread exists. grandparent of grandparent telling you that you would have won significantly more hearts and minds by skipping the attacks > Since you don't propose a 3rd possibility n.b. off the top, the whole problem here is you're reasoning about this like you're omniscient because theres a finite # of logic gates, but we're human and know there isn't a finite number of possibilities, so it's nails on a chalkboard in what otherwise is a coherent argument I affirmed the 3rd (n.b. of many!) possibility you offered already, so I won't waste your time by reaffirming it

lliamander 6y ago

"You are a bad person, therefore you are argument is wrong" is an ad-hominem. "Your argument is wrong, therefore you are a bad person" is not.