4 ms·

It took me a moment to realize that the poster is trying to use a different definition of ad-hominem which isn't actually a logical fallacy. He's just criticizi

by astine 6y ago

It took me a moment to realize that the poster is trying to use a different definition of ad-hominem which isn't actually a logical fallacy. He's just criticizing the fact that the OP is bothering to criticize article's author at all. Personally, I don't like that usage because it cheapens the definition of ad-hominem and makes it harder to call someone out when they make an actual logical fallacy.

anoncareer0212 6y ago
good lord I'm sorry it took that long, I thought were all pivoting off OP noting the argument would have been much better without the attacks
TulliusCicero 6y ago
It's a sort of bait and switch tactic. They're relying on the notion that an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, which everyone agrees is bad, an invalid method of argument. Except that they're using a uselessly vague definition of ad hominem that amounts to "any insult", which is extra stupid because we already have a word for that: insult. So why even use the Latin, then, other than to make yourself sound fancy?
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  Please try to be civil - accusing people of lying to win an argument is bad faith and doesn't belong on HN. You may also note that having a "word for that already" is also called a "synonym", and we don't accuse people of bait and switch, misrepresentation, being uselessly vague, and making themselves sound fancy because they say "synonym"
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    > accusing people of lying to win an argument is bad faith I didn't do that. I accused someone of using a cheap -- though fairly common -- type of rhetorical trick. It's a form of motte and bailey, which is itself a logical fallacy. Is accusing someone of using a logical fallacy against the rules of HN as well? Would be ironic in the current context.
anoncareer0212 6y ago
I'm not "trying to use" a "different definition" - I used the dictionary definition as a reasonable middle ground, and you keep using dehumanizing language as if I'm not here as well, and repeatedly asserting I'm trying to trick you, when the difference here is fairly simple and clear to you. Be well.

by astine 6y ago

anoncareer0212 6y ago

good lord I'm sorry it took that long, I thought were all pivoting off OP noting the argument would have been much better without the attacks

TulliusCicero 6y ago

It's a sort of bait and switch tactic. They're relying on the notion that an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, which everyone agrees is bad, an invalid method of argument. Except that they're using a uselessly vague definition of ad hominem that amounts to "any insult", which is extra stupid because we already have a word for that: insult. So why even use the Latin, then, other than to make yourself sound fancy?

anoncareer0212 6y ago
Please try to be civil - accusing people of lying to win an argument is bad faith and doesn't belong on HN. You may also note that having a "word for that already" is also called a "synonym", and we don't accuse people of bait and switch, misrepresentation, being uselessly vague, and making themselves sound fancy because they say "synonym"
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  > accusing people of lying to win an argument is bad faith I didn't do that. I accused someone of using a cheap -- though fairly common -- type of rhetorical trick. It's a form of motte and bailey, which is itself a logical fallacy. Is accusing someone of using a logical fallacy against the rules of HN as well? Would be ironic in the current context.

anoncareer0212 6y ago

I'm not "trying to use" a "different definition" - I used the dictionary definition as a reasonable middle ground, and you keep using dehumanizing language as if I'm not here as well, and repeatedly asserting I'm trying to trick you, when the difference here is fairly simple and clear to you. Be well.