4 ms·
Do you apply this same stict framework to your medical diagnoses you are handing out for people you've never met over the internet? I don't need to catalogue t
by anm89 4y ago
Do you apply this same stict framework to your medical diagnoses you are handing out for people you've never met over the internet?
I don't need to catalogue the fallacies to point out why this is not a good idea.
This is also ironically vague and there is literally no ad hominem in there. Word salad is critique of the quality of the discourse, not of the person making it.
Also fallacy fallacy, just for good measure
- Maursault 4y ago>> that gives the impression of a deep understanding of the human psyche when in reality it shows at best the ability to memorize the criteria around a few invented categories and give a horoscope based off of them. This is ad hominem. You are ignoring what is said and making a personal attack. That is what ad hominem is, ignoring the argument and attacking the man. > Do you apply this... This is ad hominem. > I don't need to catalogue the fallacies to point out why this is not a good idea. This is invincible ignorance fallacy.
- tanseydavid 4y agoI think the basic assumption is that you are diagnosing someone that you do not know and have never met, and that by doing so, you are engaging in folly.
- Maursault 4y ago
- bheadmaster 4y agoYou seem to be confusing disagreements with ad-hominem. Here's an example of real ad-hominem: "You are an obnoxious narcissistic piece of shit that thinks every disagreement is a personal insult because you can't stand not being right". If someone was to use that sentence in an argument, that would be ad-hominem. Asking whether or not you apply same standards of not using logical fallacies (from your original comment, I personally doubt it) is not ad-hominem because it's calling you out on asymmetric standards - apparently, you're free to commit logical fallacies as much as you want, but the moment someone else does, you halt all discussion and just shout "fallacy!" without any further elaboration and expect the other person to do the legwork of analysing how and why is the argument fallacious and fix it. That's not good faith discussion.
- Maursault 4y ago> You seem to be confusing disagreements with ad-hominem. Incorrect, and this is ad hominem. >>>>> impression of a deep understanding of Who is being referred to? Who is being characterized? Certainly not no one. Thus, ad hominem attack. > you're free to commit logical fallacies as much as you want, but the moment someone else does, you halt all discussion and just shout "fallacy!" This is ad hominem. But it is also a straw man masquerading as tu quoque.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bheadmaster 4y agoI'm abandoning this conversation because you seem unwilling to respond to the point of my post and bring any kind of argument to the table that isn't "fallacy!". Also, fallacy fallacy.
- Maursault 4y agoAd hominem and invincible ignorance. Who says what never matters, it is what is said that is the province of valid argument. I have made no unsupported assertions regarding the truth values of fallacious responses to my initial argument, only identified these responses as specific fallacies to justify not responding. Thus, I have not made any appeal to fallacy, leaving the accusation(s) of such as straw man arguments. I would be more than happy to entertain valid argument, but none have been made in this thread in response to my OP in preference to attempts to humiliate, ostracize and bully me. Any scrutiny whatsoever of me is fallacious argument.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rhelsing 4y ago