4 ms·

How about more of your thought process and reasoning instead of a blanket ad hominem attack?

spencerflem 1y ago
[flagged]
jf22 1y ago
That's not an ad hominem attack. Calling someone a name is not an ad hominem. Using something about someone to undermine an argument is an ad hominem. People against AI regulations are lunatics: Not ad hominem. That guy is a lunatic so his opinion about AI regulations are also insane: Ad hominem.
- buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
  You’re saying the same thing twice. One just more blatantly than the other. The point of calling someone a lunatic is to undermine their opinion. It’s ad hominem either way even if one is more subtle.
  - jf22 1y ago
    I disagree. Using such a broad definition means any negativity during a discussion can be called out as an "ad hominem" (and it happens all the time).
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
      No. It's saying that personal attacks that are meant to undermine the credibility of your opponent is ad hominem. Because it is.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > The point of calling someone a lunatic is to undermine their opinion. I don't see that as the point. I think they were just opining. There doesn't seem to be an argument they are making or refuting so this cannot, by definition, be an "argument ad hominem" (argument to the person). The parent comment to yours nails it with the given examples. The first is the conclusion to arguments -- which they did not expound on -- "this opinion is lunacy"; and the second is specific argument that "you are a lunatic" and conclusion that therefore "your opinion is lunacy". That is an argument to the person. (Not to speak to the quality of OP's comment for this message board. A comment explaining why they think it's crazy would be preferred.)
    - buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
      "anyone who arrives at the conclusion you have arrived at is a lunatic" is functionally the same as "you're a lunatic so your opinion is invalid". Nitpick all you want.
      - alganet 1y ago
        "you are a lunatic BECAUSE you're opinion is invalid" (translates to: you are being unreasonable). Not ad hominen. is different from "you are a lunatic THEREFORE your opinion is invalid" (translates to: I think your conclusions came from your mental condition). Ad hominen. It's quite easy to understand. Fallacy lists are known to be vulnerable to sophists that take it apart literally instead of seeing the broader perspective of having them. The introduction of a disruptive discussion (such as: is this a fallacy or not?) is a common technique for diversion. You should have acknowledged that the other guy didn't meant to insult when he tried to explain. But you did the opposite, you doubled down on making it an insult. It's a sign of a bad conversation, in which one or more participants are not interested in the discussion.

[flagged]

jf22 1y ago

That's not an ad hominem attack. Calling someone a name is not an ad hominem. Using something about someone to undermine an argument is an ad hominem. People against AI regulations are lunatics: Not ad hominem. That guy is a lunatic so his opinion about AI regulations are also insane: Ad hominem.

buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
You’re saying the same thing twice. One just more blatantly than the other. The point of calling someone a lunatic is to undermine their opinion. It’s ad hominem either way even if one is more subtle.
- jf22 1y ago
  I disagree. Using such a broad definition means any negativity during a discussion can be called out as an "ad hominem" (and it happens all the time).
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
    No. It's saying that personal attacks that are meant to undermine the credibility of your opponent is ad hominem. Because it is.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > The point of calling someone a lunatic is to undermine their opinion. I don't see that as the point. I think they were just opining. There doesn't seem to be an argument they are making or refuting so this cannot, by definition, be an "argument ad hominem" (argument to the person). The parent comment to yours nails it with the given examples. The first is the conclusion to arguments -- which they did not expound on -- "this opinion is lunacy"; and the second is specific argument that "you are a lunatic" and conclusion that therefore "your opinion is lunacy". That is an argument to the person. (Not to speak to the quality of OP's comment for this message board. A comment explaining why they think it's crazy would be preferred.)
  - buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
    "anyone who arrives at the conclusion you have arrived at is a lunatic" is functionally the same as "you're a lunatic so your opinion is invalid". Nitpick all you want.
    - alganet 1y ago
      "you are a lunatic BECAUSE you're opinion is invalid" (translates to: you are being unreasonable). Not ad hominen. is different from "you are a lunatic THEREFORE your opinion is invalid" (translates to: I think your conclusions came from your mental condition). Ad hominen. It's quite easy to understand. Fallacy lists are known to be vulnerable to sophists that take it apart literally instead of seeing the broader perspective of having them. The introduction of a disruptive discussion (such as: is this a fallacy or not?) is a common technique for diversion. You should have acknowledged that the other guy didn't meant to insult when he tried to explain. But you did the opposite, you doubled down on making it an insult. It's a sign of a bad conversation, in which one or more participants are not interested in the discussion.