4 ms·

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. Unless the OP was saying "The judge is wrong because he's seventy years old" he was not committing ad hominem, just commenting

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. Unless the OP was saying "The judge is wrong because he's seventy years old" he was not committing ad hominem, just commenting on a (possibly irrelevant) quality of the judge.

catshirt 15y ago
that's exactly what he was saying.
- jemfinch 15y ago
  No, he's looking at causality, not logical entailment. He's not saying the judge is old, therefore he must be wrong on Internet matters; he's saying that the judge being old is likely an influential cause of his being wrong on Internet matters. Ad Hominem only refers to fallacy of using personal qualities to present logical arguments; it has nothing to do with the use of personal qualities to ascertain causality.
- starwed 15y ago
  Nope. He argued that the judge was wrong, and then suggested that it was the judge's age that caused him to make an error. What he didn't do is to use the judge's age in support of the first argument -- that would have been ad hominem. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - catshirt 15y ago
    he did: "[suggest] that it was the judge's age that caused him to make an error" he didnt: "[use] the judge's age in support of the first argument" forgive me; perhaps you could clarify the difference?
    - Dylan16807 15y ago
      It was a side note and not part of the argument.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - jcc80 15y ago
        Is this a first year philosophy class? Reminds me of kids in law school. Ad hom this, straw man that...pointless discussion. We can all go look up the definitions if we want & decide for ourselves. Let it go & discussion the actual issue. Fact is having a second means to communicate (a .me or whatever address) doesn't mean speech isn't an issue here. http://www.thedomains.com/2011/08/05/federal-court-rules-domain-seizures-do-not-violate-free-speech-loss-of-domain-is-not-a-substantial-hardship/ http://www.thedomains.com/2011/08/05/federal-court-rules-dom...
    - starwed 15y ago
      It is the difference between > My opponent is an idiot and believes X to be true, therefore X is false. (ad hominem) and > X is false. My opponent believes X to be true, therefore they are an idiot. (Not ad hominem.)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

catshirt 15y ago

that's exactly what he was saying.

jemfinch 15y ago
No, he's looking at causality, not logical entailment. He's not saying the judge is old, therefore he must be wrong on Internet matters; he's saying that the judge being old is likely an influential cause of his being wrong on Internet matters. Ad Hominem only refers to fallacy of using personal qualities to present logical arguments; it has nothing to do with the use of personal qualities to ascertain causality.
starwed 15y ago
Nope. He argued that the judge was wrong, and then suggested that it was the judge's age that caused him to make an error. What he didn't do is to use the judge's age in support of the first argument -- that would have been ad hominem. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- catshirt 15y ago
  he did: "[suggest] that it was the judge's age that caused him to make an error" he didnt: "[use] the judge's age in support of the first argument" forgive me; perhaps you could clarify the difference?
  - Dylan16807 15y ago
    It was a side note and not part of the argument.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - jcc80 15y ago
      Is this a first year philosophy class? Reminds me of kids in law school. Ad hom this, straw man that...pointless discussion. We can all go look up the definitions if we want & decide for ourselves. Let it go & discussion the actual issue. Fact is having a second means to communicate (a .me or whatever address) doesn't mean speech isn't an issue here. http://www.thedomains.com/2011/08/05/federal-court-rules-domain-seizures-do-not-violate-free-speech-loss-of-domain-is-not-a-substantial-hardship/ http://www.thedomains.com/2011/08/05/federal-court-rules-dom...
  - starwed 15y ago
    It is the difference between > My opponent is an idiot and believes X to be true, therefore X is false. (ad hominem) and > X is false. My opponent believes X to be true, therefore they are an idiot. (Not ad hominem.)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]