2 ms·

It's straight up ad hominem[1]. Not only is "I edited that in[...]", nowhere close to being a personal attack, it's a direct response to what the other comment

by cxr 6y ago

It's straight up ad hominem[1]. Not only is "I edited that in[...]", nowhere close to being a personal attack, it's a direct response to what the other commenter wrote: > You started with "OP seems [...]" 1. And I'm not talking about intent here (in the case of either remark—mine or yours). "You're really convinced about being right" is undeniably ad hominem.

Dylan16807 6y ago
Me saying that you're confident, but that I am less confident, is not ad hominem. Generally I would classify neither of our posts as attacks. I'm not sure why you're reacting so strongly to mine.
- cxr 6y ago
  Making remarks about a person rather than the subject is outright ad hominem (once again, regardless of intent). There is no context where it isn't. I was wrong before about it being "undeniable"; it can be denied. But if you do deny it, then you're wrong.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    But it wasn't an attack. When I call your certainty misplaced it's the exact equivalent of how you just said "you're wrong". It's a bad idea to call other people wrong if you're going to react so strongly to being called wrong yourself.
    - cxr 6y ago
      > But it wasn't an attack. Here's the thing: Wiktionary tersely describes "ad hominem" as "A personal attack", so the number of people in disagreement includes: me, the person(s) who wrote that (who is not me), and then the multiple not-mes who have agreed to let it stand. Let's say that's beside the point and somehow flawed. There's the matter of your last message, where you said it wasn't ad hominem. You have changed tactics to move away from the term "ad hominem" and focus on the phrasing of "personal attack". Is it ad hominem but not a personal attack, or is it not ad hominem? > it's the exact equivalent of how you just said "you're wrong" Sorry, no. At best, you're arguing that rightness or wrongness in the case of the original comment is either unknowable or unknown. That's uncertainty. Asserting that a case of ad hominem is not ad hominem isn't a matter of uncertainty. Whether it's true is knowable and known. It's known to be wrong. > It's a bad idea to call other people wrong if you're going to react so strongly to being called wrong yourself. This is a straightforward example of ad hominem, FWIW. And I'm not "reacting strongly to be called wrong". Separately from that, even if I were, that would not make it a "bad idea to call other people wrong" (nor would it put those people into a state of being not wrong).
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        "You're really convinced" is explicitly about the position you're taking, about how correct your interpretation is, not you as a person. It's not ad hominem just because I used the word "you". It's very slightly rude, but so is telling someone that you only used the word "seems" to soften to blow of telling them they are 'objectively' wrong, and you didn't actually mean "seems". If you don't think your comment was a personal attack, then neither was mine. > This is a straightforward example of ad hominem, FWIW. Sure, that is. But it's friendly advice separate from the logical argument. And it's not ad hominem fallacy.
        cxr 6y ago
        > It's very slightly rude Irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if you were being rude or not, nor did I claim it was rude. Your comment is an ad hominem as a consequence of what what the definition of ad hominem is—not because of the tone or tenor of what you're saying. You shifted the focus from the argument towards extraneous remarks (untrue or not; could be true, even—doesn't matter) about the person you're responding to. That's ad hominem. > telling someone that you only used the word "seems" to soften to blow of telling them they are 'objectively' wrong, and you didn't actually mean "seems" The problem now is that you're making things up. Once again, my actual comment about softening the message was a direct response to my use of "OP seems [...]" being called into question. It's so far the opposite of a personal attack. It's the consequence of having been proactively conscious about the way the message would read to the point of having tried to spare someone's feelings (even when it shouldn't have been necessary).
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        > You shifted the focus from the argument towards extraneous remarks (untrue or not; could be true, even—doesn't matter) about the person you're responding to. That's ad hominem. I didn't do that in my initial comment, the one you originally accused of having ad hominem. I was using the mention of "you're really convinced" as a reference point to say that I disagreed, and nothing else. That post was entirely about your logical argument, and not about you as a person. > Once again, my actual comment about softening the message was a direct response to my use of "OP seems [...]" being called into question. It's so far the opposite of a personal attack. It's the consequence of having been proactively conscious about the way the message would read to the point of having tried to spare someone's feelings (even when it shouldn't have been necessary). Saying "actually, I was just being polite, I didn't mean that word you based your argument on" is rude even though it's honest. The combination of misleading someone and then harshly pulling the rug out from under them, then saying "clearly that effort was wasted", is not "the opposite" of a personal attack. I wouldn't say it's rude enough to count as a personal attack, but it's definitely going in that direction, and higher than 0. > It wouldn't matter if you were being rude or not, nor did I claim it was rude. Are personal attacks not a subset of rude? You said it was a personal attack.

by cxr 6y ago

Dylan16807 6y ago

Me saying that you're confident, but that I am less confident, is not ad hominem. Generally I would classify neither of our posts as attacks. I'm not sure why you're reacting so strongly to mine.

cxr 6y ago
Making remarks about a person rather than the subject is outright ad hominem (once again, regardless of intent). There is no context where it isn't. I was wrong before about it being "undeniable"; it can be denied. But if you do deny it, then you're wrong.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  But it wasn't an attack. When I call your certainty misplaced it's the exact equivalent of how you just said "you're wrong". It's a bad idea to call other people wrong if you're going to react so strongly to being called wrong yourself.
  - cxr 6y ago
    > But it wasn't an attack. Here's the thing: Wiktionary tersely describes "ad hominem" as "A personal attack", so the number of people in disagreement includes: me, the person(s) who wrote that (who is not me), and then the multiple not-mes who have agreed to let it stand. Let's say that's beside the point and somehow flawed. There's the matter of your last message, where you said it wasn't ad hominem. You have changed tactics to move away from the term "ad hominem" and focus on the phrasing of "personal attack". Is it ad hominem but not a personal attack, or is it not ad hominem? > it's the exact equivalent of how you just said "you're wrong" Sorry, no. At best, you're arguing that rightness or wrongness in the case of the original comment is either unknowable or unknown. That's uncertainty. Asserting that a case of ad hominem is not ad hominem isn't a matter of uncertainty. Whether it's true is knowable and known. It's known to be wrong. > It's a bad idea to call other people wrong if you're going to react so strongly to being called wrong yourself. This is a straightforward example of ad hominem, FWIW. And I'm not "reacting strongly to be called wrong". Separately from that, even if I were, that would not make it a "bad idea to call other people wrong" (nor would it put those people into a state of being not wrong).
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      "You're really convinced" is explicitly about the position you're taking, about how correct your interpretation is, not you as a person. It's not ad hominem just because I used the word "you". It's very slightly rude, but so is telling someone that you only used the word "seems" to soften to blow of telling them they are 'objectively' wrong, and you didn't actually mean "seems". If you don't think your comment was a personal attack, then neither was mine. > This is a straightforward example of ad hominem, FWIW. Sure, that is. But it's friendly advice separate from the logical argument. And it's not ad hominem fallacy.
      - cxr 6y ago
        > It's very slightly rude Irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if you were being rude or not, nor did I claim it was rude. Your comment is an ad hominem as a consequence of what what the definition of ad hominem is—not because of the tone or tenor of what you're saying. You shifted the focus from the argument towards extraneous remarks (untrue or not; could be true, even—doesn't matter) about the person you're responding to. That's ad hominem. > telling someone that you only used the word "seems" to soften to blow of telling them they are 'objectively' wrong, and you didn't actually mean "seems" The problem now is that you're making things up. Once again, my actual comment about softening the message was a direct response to my use of "OP seems [...]" being called into question. It's so far the opposite of a personal attack. It's the consequence of having been proactively conscious about the way the message would read to the point of having tried to spare someone's feelings (even when it shouldn't have been necessary).
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        > You shifted the focus from the argument towards extraneous remarks (untrue or not; could be true, even—doesn't matter) about the person you're responding to. That's ad hominem. I didn't do that in my initial comment, the one you originally accused of having ad hominem. I was using the mention of "you're really convinced" as a reference point to say that I disagreed, and nothing else. That post was entirely about your logical argument, and not about you as a person. > Once again, my actual comment about softening the message was a direct response to my use of "OP seems [...]" being called into question. It's so far the opposite of a personal attack. It's the consequence of having been proactively conscious about the way the message would read to the point of having tried to spare someone's feelings (even when it shouldn't have been necessary). Saying "actually, I was just being polite, I didn't mean that word you based your argument on" is rude even though it's honest. The combination of misleading someone and then harshly pulling the rug out from under them, then saying "clearly that effort was wasted", is not "the opposite" of a personal attack. I wouldn't say it's rude enough to count as a personal attack, but it's definitely going in that direction, and higher than 0. > It wouldn't matter if you were being rude or not, nor did I claim it was rude. Are personal attacks not a subset of rude? You said it was a personal attack.