3 ms·

I not only read what he wrote, I read the screenshots of OG twitter. And what he said mirrored what they said. They were incredibly one sided an censorious as h

I not only read what he wrote, I read the screenshots of OG twitter. And what he said mirrored what they said. They were incredibly one sided an censorious as hell. Your post is basically just an ad hominem. A fallacy.

angoragoats 6mo ago
For something to be an ad hominem, one needs to be 1) addressing or responding to an argument 2) by attacking the character of the person making the argument rather than the substance of the argument. Even though OP didn’t provide them, I can think of many supporting examples for their assertion that Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi are either intentionally operating in bad faith, or stupid, or both. So this does not at all meet the definition of ad hominem. Put another way: “you’re wrong because you’re stupid” is an ad hominem. “You’re wrong, and I think you’re stupid because [reason]” is not. This holds even if the person making the argument does not explicitly give the reason.
- 0ckpuppet 6mo ago
  HN is dead if you find yourself explaining that.
  - angoragoats 6mo ago
    I agree.
- unselect5917 6mo ago
  For something to be an ad hominem you simply need to address the speaker rather than what was said, which is exactly what that comment did. You're deliberately overcomplicating things to obfuscate the obvious fallacy.
  - angoragoats 6mo ago
    > For something to be an ad hominem you simply need to address the speaker rather than what was said No, this is a common misconception. Addressing the speaker is part of it but is not sufficient by itself. People who are quick to claim “ad hominem!” have been getting this wrong basically forever, so please feel free to educate yourself by reading this excellent post: https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html “It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.”

angoragoats 6mo ago

For something to be an ad hominem, one needs to be 1) addressing or responding to an argument 2) by attacking the character of the person making the argument rather than the substance of the argument. Even though OP didn’t provide them, I can think of many supporting examples for their assertion that Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi are either intentionally operating in bad faith, or stupid, or both. So this does not at all meet the definition of ad hominem. Put another way: “you’re wrong because you’re stupid” is an ad hominem. “You’re wrong, and I think you’re stupid because [reason]” is not. This holds even if the person making the argument does not explicitly give the reason.

0ckpuppet 6mo ago
HN is dead if you find yourself explaining that.
- angoragoats 6mo ago
  I agree.
unselect5917 6mo ago
For something to be an ad hominem you simply need to address the speaker rather than what was said, which is exactly what that comment did. You're deliberately overcomplicating things to obfuscate the obvious fallacy.
- angoragoats 6mo ago
  > For something to be an ad hominem you simply need to address the speaker rather than what was said No, this is a common misconception. Addressing the speaker is part of it but is not sufficient by itself. People who are quick to claim “ad hominem!” have been getting this wrong basically forever, so please feel free to educate yourself by reading this excellent post: https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html “It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.”