4 ms·

In real life, virtually no one uses true ad hominem. No on says, "he is a jerk, therefore he's wrong." In my book, using insults and connotative (negative) lang

by ellyagg 17y ago

thaumaturgy 17y ago
Mmm, a debate about debates. How meta. I have a couple of problems with this. First, by broadly sweeping "everything I don't like about arguments" under the label "ad hominem", you're powerfully eroding the usefulness of the term. It has a specific use and purpose, and it's useful to understand the various fallacies in debate (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/). Also, you admit that this style of debate has a place in entertainment writing -- in a thread about his letter to the editor. This was not a formal debate, nor was it the appropriate forum for such; he was writing a response that would reach a large number of readers, and they were his audience. Besides, aren't you committing the selfsame fallacy that you're accusing him of, according to your own rules? i.e., "Gladwell used methods I don't like, so he's wrong." I wasn't aware that this was a Reddit meme. I stopped visiting Reddit some months ago, and my usage fell off even before then. I'm glad it is, though. If someone's going to try and bolster their criticism of someone else by using fancy Latin phrases, they really ought to get called out on it by someone that knows better.
gloob 17y ago
In real life, virtually no one uses true ad hominem. No on says, "he is a jerk, therefore he's wrong." In my book, using insults and connotative (negative) language rather than strictly denotative is on the ad hominem scale. It is absolutely designed to undermine the credibility of the person you're debating while not engaging the argument at all. If something is "a lot like ad hominem, but not ad hominem", then referring to it as "ad hominem" is deliberately distorting the truth. We shouldn't defend argument techniques that make truth-seeking harder. I don't see anyone claiming we should. What is being claimed is that this isn't ad hominem, which is a point you've all but conceded in your opening two sentences. If you are going to request that people debate "properly", it would be rather nice if you didn't reserve a special place for yourself and your favourite misinterpretations.

by ellyagg 17y ago

thaumaturgy 17y ago

Mmm, a debate about debates. How meta. I have a couple of problems with this. First, by broadly sweeping "everything I don't like about arguments" under the label "ad hominem", you're powerfully eroding the usefulness of the term. It has a specific use and purpose, and it's useful to understand the various fallacies in debate (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/). Also, you admit that this style of debate has a place in entertainment writing -- in a thread about his letter to the editor. This was not a formal debate, nor was it the appropriate forum for such; he was writing a response that would reach a large number of readers, and they were his audience. Besides, aren't you committing the selfsame fallacy that you're accusing him of, according to your own rules? i.e., "Gladwell used methods I don't like, so he's wrong." I wasn't aware that this was a Reddit meme. I stopped visiting Reddit some months ago, and my usage fell off even before then. I'm glad it is, though. If someone's going to try and bolster their criticism of someone else by using fancy Latin phrases, they really ought to get called out on it by someone that knows better.

gloob 17y ago

In real life, virtually no one uses true ad hominem. No on says, "he is a jerk, therefore he's wrong." In my book, using insults and connotative (negative) language rather than strictly denotative is on the ad hominem scale. It is absolutely designed to undermine the credibility of the person you're debating while not engaging the argument at all. If something is "a lot like ad hominem, but not ad hominem", then referring to it as "ad hominem" is deliberately distorting the truth. We shouldn't defend argument techniques that make truth-seeking harder. I don't see anyone claiming we should. What is being claimed is that this isn't ad hominem, which is a point you've all but conceded in your opening two sentences. If you are going to request that people debate "properly", it would be rather nice if you didn't reserve a special place for yourself and your favourite misinterpretations.