NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously people...do personal attacks (ad hominem) EVER win a debate for you? Why bother? If someone disputes your ideas, why should you take that personally, and then go talking bad about their mama? They're your ideas...they don't represent YOU. Same goes with all the "celebrity" bashing of Moore and Bush...what they do in the privacy of their homes (whether that involves eating copious amounts of fried chicken, or 'unnatural' acts with sheep) should have no bearing on your analysis of their political views. Ad hominem does not provide evidence to back up your points...so if you're just in it for kicks, keep bashing, but don't pretend you're making an analysis. :gundge:

Hooray!

Let's give it up for argumentam ad hominem!
NS's preferred style of debate!

:D

Ad hominem shouldn't be necessary, but sometimes it's just fun to tear someone's character apart.

Seriously people...do personal attacks (ad hominem) EVER win a debate for you? Why bother? If someone disputes your ideas, why should you take that personally, and then go talking bad about their mama? They're your ideas...they don't represent YOU. Same goes with all the "celebrity" bashing of Moore and Bush...what they do in the privacy of their homes (whether that involves eating copious amounts of fried chicken, or 'unnatural' acts with sheep) should have no bearing on your analysis of their political views. Ad hominem does not provide evidence to back up your points...so if you're just in it for kicks, keep bashing, but don't pretend you're making an analysis. :gundge:

I define victory in a debate very different than most people seem to. The only real victory in a debate is when the opposing sides come to an agreement. Otherwise, no one wins and nothing is changed for the better.

In any case insults make it significantly less likely for there to be victory in any debate.

Is it ad hominem to insist that you're a psychiatrist and "identify" your opponent's psychological flaws?

Not that I do it myself... :)

I think you may have the wrong idea as to what ad hominem means.
It simply means that the argument is directed toward a single individual, nothing about insults or criticism is implied. You could argue ad hominem to me on the basis that I live in Brazil, and this would be justified.
If you argue that I am an ignorant backwoods uneducated third worlder, then this is not justified, but it is not ad hominem, as it does not apply to me.

Ad hominem shouldn't be necessary, but sometimes it's just fun to tear someone's character apart.
Hey, even I get that urge...and sometimes I give in just a little but I can usually put myself back on track....

It's the constant, "So and so is political wrong because they are a (insert insult here)". People need to understand that in order to completely anihilate a person, you need to tear their argument apart, word by word, with cold precision, until it lies gibbering madly on the floor....

THAT is victory, and so much more satisfying....

:headbang: Seriously people...do personal attacks (ad hominem) EVER win a debate for you? Why bother? If someone disputes your ideas, why should you take that personally, and then go talking bad about their mama? They're your ideas...they don't represent YOU. Same goes with all the "celebrity" bashing of Moore and Bush...what they do in the privacy of their homes (whether that involves eating copious amounts of fried chicken, or 'unnatural' acts with sheep) should have no bearing on your analysis of their political views. Ad hominem does not provide evidence to back up your points...so if you're just in it for kicks, keep bashing, but don't pretend you're making an analysis.
Good luck in making anyone sit up and take notice of this. :headbang:

I define victory in a debate very different than most people seem to. The only real victory in a debate is when the opposing sides come to an agreement. Otherwise, no one wins and nothing is changed for the better.


Despite my previous post, I agree with you...these are really the conversations I leave feeling good about...though a good tearing-into-your-argument can be fun too.....just not as lasting.

I think you may have the wrong idea as to what ad hominem means.
It simply means that the argument is directed toward a single individual, nothing about insults or criticism is implied. You could argue ad hominem to me on the basis that I live in Brazil, and this would be justified.
If you argue that I am an ignorant backwoods uneducated third worlder, then this is not justified, but it is not ad hominem, as it does not apply to me.
I believe s/he is referring to the argumentam ad hominem fallacy:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Exposition:

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

I think you may have the wrong idea as to what ad hominem means.
It simply means that the argument is directed toward a single individual, nothing about insults or criticism is implied. You could argue ad hominem to me on the basis that I live in Brazil, and this would be justified.
If you argue that I am an ignorant backwoods uneducated third worlder, then this is not justified, but it is not ad hominem, as it does not apply to me.

You live and learn...

I think you may have the wrong idea as to what ad hominem means.
It simply means that the argument is directed toward a single individual, nothing about insults or criticism is implied. You could argue ad hominem to me on the basis that I live in Brazil, and this would be justified.
If you argue that I am an ignorant backwoods uneducated third worlder, then this is not justified, but it is not ad hominem, as it does not apply to me.
Well, I'm working from this definition of the term, notably the second definition:

Main Entry: ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Ad hominem... does it ever win a debate?

Yes. Now shut up, you dumb little bastard.

:headbang:
Good luck in making anyone sit up and take notice of this. :headbang:
I know I'm blowing into the wind...I'm ranting more than anything. I realise I'm not going to change anyone's behaviour, but I like to hear myself type:).

Well, most of the ad hominems are rather unsubtle.

When someone calls you a f**king gun-toting redneck **YEEEHAW!** right when you've just made a point, it doesn't win or lose in my book - I just lose interest in any further discussion.

The other tactic here is to resort to accusations that you've gone off topic (when I still think I'm on in a relevant way).

OK. I live and learn in this case. I had my definitions twisted, as I tend to encounter the term in the discussions of moral theory, where it does not carry the second meaning cited by Sinuhue :D

Yes. Now shut up, you dumb little bastard.
I am a bastard, yes, though I feel no shame, and I am far from dumb...in fact I am loquacious to a fault. :p You ad hominemor you!

Well, most of the ad hominems are rather unsubtle.

When someone calls you a f**king gun-toting redneck **YEEEHAW!** right when you've just made a point, it doesn't win or lose in my book - I just lose interest in any further discussion.

The other tactic here is to resort to accusations that you've gone off topic (when I still think I'm on in a relevant way).
Yes, that's a tough one, because then you waste time saying, "No, I'm still on topic and this is why"....bah.

I know I'm blowing into the wind...I'm ranting more than anything. I realise I'm not going to change anyone's behaviour, but I like to hear myself type:).

Well ... ok then. I hope you feel better. :)

Well ... ok then. I hope you feel better. :)
I would if you could tell me how to pronounce my new title....pimp was bad, but at least I could say it!

Despite my previous post, I agree with you...these are really the conversations I leave feeling good about...though a good tearing-into-your-argument can be fun too.....just not as lasting.

I do believe you're the first person to every agree with my opinion on that subject, at least that I've experienced first hand.

I would if you could tell me how to pronounce my new title....pimp was bad, but at least I could say it!
"ZX81 H4x0r0r" <-- This thing?

"Z X eighty-one hacker" ZX81 is the name of an old computer model, as I recall.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2001/om20010408.jpg

Seriously people...do personal attacks (ad hominem) EVER win a debate for you? Why bother? If someone disputes your ideas, why should you take that personally, and then go talking bad about their mama? They're your ideas...they don't represent YOU. Same goes with all the "celebrity" bashing of Moore and Bush...what they do in the privacy of their homes (whether that involves eating copious amounts of fried chicken, or 'unnatural' acts with sheep) should have no bearing on your analysis of their political views. Ad hominem does not provide evidence to back up your points...so if you're just in it for kicks, keep bashing, but don't pretend you're making an analysis. :gundge:
i disagree that one's ideas are not an integral part of the individual; indeed, i believe that the ONLY fair criterion upon which to judge people is their ideas and how they choose to act upon them. however, i don't see why anybody would feel personally insulted if their ideas are attacked...personally, i come on NationStates precisely because i want to have my convictions challenged, because i want to have my ideas tested, and because i want people to try their hardest to rip my founding principles to pieces. if they can, then that means i need to work on my positions, not just get mad and start calling them nasty names.

I would argue that if you can't prove your point without resorting to personal attacks, you've automatically LOST the debate. The way I see it, there are three possible outcomes to a debate if there's no personal attacks: 1) you "win" the debate by convincing your opponent that your argument is the better one or that you're right about a particular issue; 2) you "lose" the debate by being convinced that you're wrong about a particular issue; or 3) neither of you can convince the other so you end up agreeing to disagree.

There's a reason that ad homenim attacks are considered a fallacy in any debate class worth its salt.

Ad hominems don't win debates by themselves, you have to mix in other fallacies, too ;)

Peoople must be lying in these polls, because this doesn't reflect at all what I've seen on these forums. Every other post is an Ad Hominem fallacy. Btw, when I use the term Ad Hominem, I mean it to mean the fallacy asm most do. I know its not the literall Latin interp., but the fallacy is the connotation which has been attached to Ad Hominem, and to me connotation is more important than literal definition when considering a language.

Peoople must be lying in these polls, because this doesn't reflect at all what I've seen on these forums. Every other post is an Ad Hominem fallacy. Btw, when I use the term Ad Hominem, I mean it to mean the fallacy asm most do. I know its not the literall Latin interp., but the fallacy is the connotation which has been attached to Ad Hominem, and to me connotation is more important than literal definition when considering a language.


Well, you wouldn't think that way if you weren't a German.

"ZX81 H4x0r0r" <-- This thing?

"Z X eighty-one hacker" ZX81 is the name of an old computer model, as I recall.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Thanks!

:headbang:
Good luck in making anyone sit up and take notice of this. :headbang:
You might be right:
You know, after reading your posts on here, I begin to understand why some animals eat their young!
"Backbone?" Hmmm. Looks more like Boxer is the self-serving b***h!
And BTW ... if you "could care less," that means that there is still more "less" that you could choose to not care about. I suspect the phrase you seek is "I couldn't care less." Just a suggestion for you to consider ... kinda like the one that you could find someone less antagonistic, biased and reality-challenged to represent you.

More likely something in your sister.

"Facts" is actually a code word for "things foreign to Californians."
What are you? An exercise in artificial stupidity? There's a world of difference between "facts" and "truth." Even extreme leftists can use "facts." "Truth," however, seems to constantly escape them.

Are you even trying anymore?

Are you even trying anymore?

I thought so as well. Good point. In fact, Sinuhue's prowess in the recent bakery competition where she won 2nd place with her raspberry tart shows another interesting side to her personality.

i disagree that one's ideas are not an integral part of the individual; indeed, i believe that the ONLY fair criterion upon which to judge people is their ideas and how they choose to act upon them. however, i don't see why anybody would feel personally insulted if their ideas are attacked...personally, i come on NationStates precisely because i want to have my convictions challenged, because i want to have my ideas tested, and because i want people to try their hardest to rip my founding principles to pieces. if they can, then that means i need to work on my positions, not just get mad and start calling them nasty names.

To clarify: I never said that one's beliefs aren't an integral part of them. What I am referring to is that often people hold certain beliefs which have not been truly analysed. When anyone questions those beliefs, they get upset, and take it as a personal attack. Rather than discussing their beliefs, and perhaps making their ideas clearer in their own minds, they take the stance that they are right, and any dissension is meant to make them look foolish. I too enjoy debating with people, because it gives me a fresh look at things, and it helps me solidify my beliefs as well as my arguments. Often I learn something new, and I have to take it into consideration. My core values remain constant, but my particular beliefs are fluid to a certain extent. Those who refuse to analyse their beliefs feel threatened, and rightly so, because the can not defend their position.

For example, someone states, "I am a proud Canadian!" You ask, "Well hey, good for you...now what does that mean?" They reply after a confused look, "Well it means I love my country!" You say, "That's always nice...but what does it mean?" They stare at you strangely and answer, "Well, I support my country. I'm proud of it! I'm a patriot!" You ask, "Oh, does that include supporting the recent (throw in political scandal here) as well?" They look blank, so you describe it for them, and then they say, "Oh, no. I don't like that, but I love Canada." You ask, "What part exactly of Canada do you love? Is it the economic system? The political one? The environment? What?" They're getting a little annoyed now and reply sharply, "Yeah, all of it. Except those damn welfare bums...I hate that!" You start to analyse that position, "So, you feel that people shouldn't receive welfare?" They glare and mutter a little, "No, damn lazy bums need to get a job! I'm a patriot! I work for my money!" You mention that Canada is a blended economy and has socialist tendencies and they break in, "Frickin socialists! I hate those bastards too!" You point out, "Perhaps it would be better then to say, I love MOST of Canada, I am a patriot with reservations about socialism." They take a long look at you, red in the face and then, "You f**king pinko commie feminist b**ch! Are you saying I'm not a god-damn patriot? Are you? F**k you, lesbian!" The conversation ends with you rolling on the floor, laughing.

You might be right:

*snip*
Are you even trying anymore?
*breathless with laughter* Oh oh funny...... :p :D

Yeah - you're right - lots of people come here and try to argue their beliefs (but with no reasoning or evidence for their stance - just their opinion).

And no - you're wrong. It's not more satisfying to beat their into humiliation with a stunning argument that forces their hand - after all, what's the point in arguing with idiots?

It's more satisfying to beat those who are willing to discuss an issue in debate.

It's much more satisfying to ridicule idiots :)

"I am a proud Canadian!"
"Well hey, good for you...now what does that mean?"
"Well it means I love my country!"
"That's always nice...but what does it mean?"
"Well, I support my country. I'm proud of it! I'm a patriot!"
"Oh, does that include supporting the recent (throw in political scandal here) as well?"
They look blank, so you describe it for them.
"Oh, no. I don't like that, but I love Canada."
"What part exactly of Canada do you love? Is it the economic system? The political one? The environment? What?"
"Yeah, all of it. Except those damn welfare bums...I hate that!"
"So, you feel that people shouldn't receive welfare?"
"No, damn lazy bums need to get a job! I'm a patriot! I work for my money!"
You mention that Canada is a blended economy and has socialist tendencies and they break in:
"Frickin socialists! I hate those bastards too!"
"Perhaps it would be better then to say, I love MOST of Canada, I am a patriot with reservations about socialism."
*red in the face*, "You f**king pinko commie feminist b**ch! Are you saying I'm not a god-damn patriot? Are you? F**k you, lesbian!"

The conversation ends with you rolling on the floor, laughing.

Is this not a parody ad hominem? It is not a general argument, nor does it present any logical structure. It simply parodies a particular point of view. ;)

Is this not a parody ad hominem? It is not a general argument, nor does it present any logical structure. It simply parodies a particular point of view. ;)
This parody is indeed a parody. Good eye. As for it being ad hominem...it is simply an example of a real or imagined event and was not made to further any argument, but rather illustrate how ad hominem (in the sense I mean it, following my dictionary definition as a personal attack) might look. :p

This parody is indeed a parody. Good eye. As for it being ad hominem...it is simply an example of a real or imagined event and was not made to further any argument, but rather illustrate how ad hominem (in the sense I mean it, following my dictionary definition as a personal attack) might look. :p

The question is, are you, or the parody of the warmongering right winger, arguing ad hominem. I know that you feel that in this example that you are being insulted, but does the right winger not feel that you are insulting him by questioning his patriotism?

The question is, are you, or the parody of the warmongering right winger, arguing ad hominem. I know that you feel that in this example that you are being insulted, but does the right winger not feel that you are insulting him by questioning his patriotism?
There...this is a great chance to explain my take on ad hominem:).

First, don't assume I feel insulted...if indeed (as has been the case), someone responds to me by hurling insults, the last thing I feel is insulted. Do they know me? Do I know them? Do I care what they think of me? Not particularly. I find it amusing when a conversation degenerates to that, and make no attempt to carry it further.

I wasn't questioning his patriotism...I was questioning what his patriotism MEANT. I do not think all patriots have the same ideas about what their patriotism entails, and clarification is sometimes needed, even on Canada day in a smoky bar:).

As for the person feeling insulted because I questioned what he meant by declaring himself a patriot...that is exactly what I mean by not taking it personally when someone questions your beliefs. Had this person really thought about what it meant to be a patriot, he would have been able to clarify his position. I would have gone away more understanding of his position (from vague to specific), and likely HE would have a clearer understanding of it as well...since explaining something to someone is a great learning experience. The fact that simply asking questions meant to narrow down his statement could get someone so flustered and angry as to resort to insults suggests to me that his position really wasn't well thought out. Instead of admitting that and saying, "Ah, whatever, I'm just having a good time" and not bothering with the conversation, or "I guess I haven't thought about it that much, so let's discuss it", he chooses to see my questions as a personal attack...as though I am directly insulting his person. When someone says to me: "Hey, you say you're a feminist, but what the hell does that really mean?" I don't get mad, I explain. Even if it takes a while, even if some areas are still grey for me, I will explain my position and defend it. If someone doesn't agree with me, or brings up points I haven't considered, I don't get offended. It isn't ME they are questioning...it is my reasoning. Do you get where I'm coming from?

That's not to say I don't get frustrated sometimes, either because my thoughts are nebulous (not yet completely thought out) and hard to explain, or because someone is being purposely obtuse...but that doesn't OFFEND ME.

Alien, don't make me start using boring English words like, "personal attacks in place of good argument" instead of Latin....I cling to the illusion of intelligence only through my verbosity...

There...this is a great chance to explain my take on ad hominem:).

First, don't assume I feel insulted...if indeed (as has been the case), someone responds to me by hurling insults, the last thing I feel is insulted. Do they know me? Do I know them? Do I care what they think of me? Not particularly. I find it amusing when a conversation degenerates to that, and make no attempt to carry it further.

I wasn't questioning his patriotism...I was questioning what his patriotism MEANT. I do not think all patriots have the same ideas about what their patriotism entails, and clarification is sometimes needed, even on Canada day in a smoky bar:).

As for the person feeling insulted because I questioned what he meant by declaring himself a patriot...that is exactly what I mean by not taking it personally when someone questions your beliefs. Had this person really thought about what it meant to be a patriot, he would have been able to clarify his position. I would have gone away more understanding of his position (from vague to specific), and likely HE would have a clearer understanding of it as well...since explaining something to someone is a great learning experience. The fact that simply asking questions meant to narrow down his statement could get someone so flustered and angry as to resort to insults suggests to me that his position really wasn't well thought out. Instead of admitting that and saying, "Ah, whatever, I'm just having a good time" and not bothering with the conversation, or "I guess I haven't thought about it that much, so let's discuss it", he chooses to see my questions as a personal attack...as though I am directly insulting his person. When someone says to me: "Hey, you say you're a feminist, but what the hell does that really mean?" I don't get mad, I explain. Even if it takes a while, even if some areas are still grey for me, I will explain my position and defend it. If someone doesn't agree with me, or brings up points I haven't considered, I don't get offended. It isn't ME they are questioning...it is my reasoning. Do you get where I'm coming from?

As a strategy for use in debate, and advancement of your own personal knowledge, I not only understand you, but you have described fairly well my own approach. (You may have gathered this from our debate on feminism). All I was questioning, in my sometimes over sarcastic way, was where, in the discussion with the right wing fanatic, lay the argument ad hominem. Clearly he, or she (I should not assume that all mad right wingers are male), had resorted to using personal insults and this was argument ad hominem by your definition.
My doubt was as to whether your strategy, of questioning his or hewr beliefs, could not also be technically argument ad hominem. Yes, if the opponent had stopped and considered your arguments, then they would have walked away wiser in the end. But if not, They are just being insulted, in their terms, not yours.

Alien, don't make me start using boring English words like, "personal attacks in place of good argument" instead of Latin....I cling to the illusion of intelligence only through my verbosity...

I have accepted, earlier, that my definition of ad hominem, was too limited. :fluffle:

My doubt was as to whether your strategy, of questioning his or hewr beliefs, could not also be technically argument ad hominem.

No - anything is fair game. Too many come in here, start arguing, get their arguments knocked down to a faith issue and are then left with "because the bible says so, and I believe" - which just isn't good enough if you want to convince someone to change their opinion.

When their arguments are based upon faith issues, what constitutes "questioning their belief" - surely questioning their opinion is questioning their belief?

No - anything is fair game. Too many come in here, start arguing, get their arguments knocked down to a faith issue and are then left with "because the bible says so, and I believe" - which just isn't good enough if you want to convince someone to change their opinion.

When their arguments are based upon faith issues, what constitutes "questioning their belief" - surely questioning their opinion is questioning their belief?

I have, at no time, implied that for me there was a problem with argument ad hominem. There is however a problem if this is defined as simple insult, without any content beyond the insult.

The definition, provided by Sinuhue is

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster online
Main Entry: ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

The concise OED gives

Ad Hominem (IPA stuff) adv. & adj.
1. relating to or associated with a particular person.
2. (of an argument) appealing to the emotions and not to reason.
(L = to the person.)
and in this case an argument that addresses someones specific beliefs, well founded or not, would fall under Webster definition 1 / OED definition 2. Beliefs, are, I think a very strong feeling or strongly held prejudice (in the sense of a pre-rational decision). In this case, the argument that, that is just your opinion, is ad hominem, but not wrong.

Beliefs, are, I think a very strong feeling or strongly held prejudice (in the sense of a pre-rational decision). In this case, the argument that, that is just your opinion, is ad hominem, but not wrong.

Oh no - certainly - holding a belief neither proves nor disproves the belief being held. Unfortunately, many here don't realise this, and try and use their beliefs as the foundation of all of their arguments.

I guess arguing about their beliefs is fair game (I mean - you're not insulting them), but.. ultimately pointless since they're faith issues which can't be proven true or untrue.

Mocking them might count as Ad Hominem, but hey - that's a fun issue, and nothing to do with trying to win the argument (after all - you can't win against someone who doesn't actually have an argument? :) )

As a strategy for use in debate, and advancement of your own personal knowledge, I not only understand you, but you have described fairly well my own approach. (You may have gathered this from our debate on feminism). All I was questioning, in my sometimes over sarcastic way, was where, in the discussion with the right wing fanatic, lay the argument ad hominem. Clearly he, or she (I should not assume that all mad right wingers are male), had resorted to using personal insults and this was argument ad hominem by your definition.
My doubt was as to whether your strategy, of questioning his or hewr beliefs, could not also be technically argument ad hominem. Yes, if the opponent had stopped and considered your arguments, then they would have walked away wiser in the end. But if not, They are just being insulted, in their terms, not yours.
Yes, but I'm sure I could insult someone by just being alive, if they really chose to be insulted by that. An insult, as I think of it, is intentionally intended as such. If I questioned his beliefs about patriotism in a superior and snarky manner, I could see him taking offense. (This is a highly condensed version of a much larger conversation), but I made it a point to remain calm and reasonable, and apologize any time he mistook my words to be an attack on him. Nonetheless, the conversation ended in the manner described. It was neither my intent, nor my purpose to be insulting, yet he took insult anyway. My thoughts on this is that he was not sure of his beliefs, but felt personally threatened by my inquiries because he had internalized his beliefs without analysis, and used them to define himself. I figure, if you want to define yourself by your beliefs, at least be clear on those beliefs, or just don't tie so much of your identity up in how you think about things.

Mocking them might count as Ad Hominem, but hey - that's a fun issue, and nothing to do with trying to win the argument (after all - you can't win against someone who doesn't actually have an argument? :) )

Sure is fun though :p

The only problem is that one sometimes gets too close to troll baiting. :(

Sure is fun though :p

The only problem is that one sometimes gets too close to troll baiting. :(

These forums are only fun because of the huge swathes of morons :)
( The trolls don't need baiting - the trolls post regardless :) )

Questioning a belief is in no way an attack. If someone takes it as such, they obviously haven't really examined their own beliefs much and are most likely very weak in faith.

Saying "If you believe that, you are just a stupid, illiterate monkey!" would be an attack.

That said, I don't feel that pointing out a lack of knowledge on the part of the person arguing is an ad hominem attack, although I often get people who are rather angry at me for it. If someone is, for instance, attempting to argue a biological issue (something I know quite a bit about) and use inaccurate terminology or biological information, I may point out that their knowledge in the field of biology is lacking. Usually, I then get "There's no reason to attack me!!! I'm just as smart as you are!!" Note that I didn't attack their intelligence, but simply pointed out that their knowledge in a particular area was rather lacking.

*snip*
I figure, if you want to define yourself by your beliefs, at least be clear on those beliefs, or just don't tie so much of your identity up in how you think about things.

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks about things, they just beleive. I have never really understood how they come to have beliefs without considering the possibilities, but apparently they do. If you find yourself in a discussion with one of these individuals that hold spontaneously generated beleiefs, then any questioning of that beleif would be insulting to them. (Just look at various threads here, with posters such as 1234543211). For you or I, an insult is given or not, by the intent, if this is discoverable. If it is not, then | tend to react the same way as you, laugh. However for many others, as I am sure you know, an insult is in what is said, not in why it was said. Here is where the border between reasoned argument and ad hominem insults, gets very vague.
Under these circumstances, the best thing to do is normally to walk away and forget about it. However, there are circumstances where this is not possible (Relatives, Colleagues, Students, Authorities etc.) Now, if you can not walk away, do we, reasoning about our arguments, have an obligation to not question the others belief, if this questioning will be understood as an insult?

and in this case an argument that addresses someones specific beliefs, well founded or not, would fall under Webster definition 1 / OED definition 2. Beliefs, are, I think a very strong feeling or strongly held prejudice (in the sense of a pre-rational decision). In this case, the argument that, that is just your opinion, is ad hominem, but not wrong.
I think we're arguing semantics here...but hey, I'm always up for some antics!

The way I read that definition is as follows:

Appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.

To me, this means making an argument based on emotion, not facts. Such as saying, "We should have capital punishment because anyone who kills children deserves to die!" This is an emotional response, not a fact.

Now when I use the word ad hominem, I usually don't include the above definition, as I generally reserve it only for personal attacks.

However, by questioning someone's beliefs, you are not appealing to feelings or prejudice rather than fact. You are not saying their beliefs are wrong because of (insert prejudice or emotion here). You are trying to determine what that belief is based in, and you offer arguments to show why that base is not solid. If they can refute you with logic, then they have proven that their base is indeed well-thought out. Reacting in anger turns the attention away from the argument, and from the belief, and turns it onto the person. I never attack the person, I attack the argument. I attack the basis of the belief. I don't think under any definition that is ad hominem.

Questioning a belief is in no way an attack. If someone takes it as such, they obviously haven't really examined their own beliefs much and are most likely very weak in faith.

Saying "If you believe that, you are just a stupid, illiterate monkey!" would be an attack.

That said, I don't feel that pointing out a lack of knowledge on the part of the person arguing is an ad hominem attack, although I often get people who are rather angry at me for it. If someone is, for instance, attempting to argue a biological issue (something I know quite a bit about) and use inaccurate terminology or biological information, I may point out that their knowledge in the field of biology is lacking. Usually, I then get "There's no reason to attack me!!! I'm just as smart as you are!!" Note that I didn't attack their intelligence, but simply pointed out that their knowledge in a particular area was rather lacking.
Hi Dem, if I may call you that. A question, do you and Sinuhue have any connection, or is it simply coincidence?

Questioning a belief is in no way an attack. If someone takes it as such, they obviously haven't really examined their own beliefs much and are most likely very weak in faith.

Saying "If you believe that, you are just a stupid, illiterate monkey!" would be an attack.

That said, I don't feel that pointing out a lack of knowledge on the part of the person arguing is an ad hominem attack, although I often get people who are rather angry at me for it. If someone is, for instance, attempting to argue a biological issue (something I know quite a bit about) and use inaccurate terminology or biological information, I may point out that their knowledge in the field of biology is lacking. Usually, I then get "There's no reason to attack me!!! I'm just as smart as you are!!" Note that I didn't attack their intelligence, but simply pointed out that their knowledge in a particular area was rather lacking.
That's the problem...people equate knowledge with intelligence, and people equate their beliefs with themselves. While there are links, they are by no means the same thing. You might not have the knowledge, but you aren't stupid. You might not be able to back up your beliefs, but that doesn't mean you're any less YOU.

Summary: Questioning beliefs isn't an insult unless the question includes an insult:

Example:
Non insult - So, if humans were indeed put on Earth by aliens, where then is their spacecraft?

Insult - So, if humans were indeed put on Earth by aliens, where then is their spacecraft, you cocksucker?

Hi Dem, if I may call you that. A question, do you and Sinuhue have any connection, or is it simply coincidence?

We've debated (both against each other and on the same side) in several threads. She's actually gotten quite upset with me and resorted to what seemed like personal attacks at least once (althout I just assume these days that it must've been a bad hair day or something, since I haven't seen anything other than logical arguments since)

Other than that, no connection.

However, by questioning someone's beliefs, you are not appealing to feelings or prejudice rather than fact. You are not saying their beliefs are wrong because of (insert prejudice or emotion here). You are trying to determine what that belief is based in, and you offer arguments to show why that base is not solid. If they can refute you with logic, then they have proven that their base is indeed well-thought out. Reacting in anger turns the attention away from the argument, and from the belief, and turns it onto the person. I never attack the person, I attack the argument. I attack the basis of the belief. I don't think under any definition that is ad hominem.

Your questioning may not appeal to feelings or prejudice, however their reaction to your questioning is such that they will believe that you are. In questioning a belief you are, in effect, attacking the person. From their point of view.

This whole debate turns upon what is considered to be an appeal to feelings and emotions. And it is here that thew two types of people, those with blind faith, and those with reasoned beliefs, will differ.

I would not accuse you of using attacks against the person, in the terms that you use. As you say, this turns on semantics. The problem is that the blind-faither will accuse you of this.

Under these circumstances, the best thing to do is normally to walk away and forget about it. However, there are circumstances where this is not possible (Relatives, Colleagues, Students, Authorities etc.) Now, if you can not walk away, do we, reasoning about our arguments, have an obligation to not question the others belief, if this questioning will be understood as an insult?
If someone doesn't want to discuss something, I have no problem with respecting their wishes. If, however, someone corners me and starts in about the Jewish conspiracy, the gloves are off. I refuse to be tutored by barstool intellectuals who think a young woman will be impressed by whatever political argument they've read about lately. If you open yourself up to discussion, be prepared to discuss! Don't give me your argument, then get pissed when I tear it to shreds. I'm not a lesbian b**ch just because your fast talking didn't drop my pants to the floor. *whew! stops rant*

Of course I will respect people's beliefs. I won't drill them and demand explanation. Not unless they start pushing for me to believe the same thing. Then I demand proof, I demand facts, I demand REASONS. If that insults them, too bad...the intent is not there, nor is it the basis of my argument, therefore it is not ad hominem. I will not call them idiots, or say they sleep with cats...I will simply refuse to smile blandly and say, "You're so right!"

Hi Dem, if I may call you that. A question, do you and Sinuhue have any connection, or is it simply coincidence?
We have never met. Nor do we plot in dark basements.

Summary: Questioning beliefs isn't an insult unless the question includes an insult:

Example:
Non insult - So, if humans were indeed put on Earth by aliens, where then is their spacecraft?

Insult - So, if humans were indeed put on Earth by aliens, where then is their spacecraft, you cocksucker?

This works as the subject is one that very few people are passionate about.

Try instead:
Non insult - So, if humans were created by God, where is the evidence?

Insult - So, if humans were created by God, where is the evidence you cocksucker?

You, or I, or the girls, would agree that the first of these is not an insult. However a true creationist would be insulted by the question, without any need for any additional charaqcter slur. Not all of them, but anyone who truly and deeply beleives, would be insulted by having their belief questioned. Therein lies the problem. Who is responsible for the insult, the questioner or the believer. Both will think the other is.

Of course I will respect people's beliefs. I won't drill them and demand explanation. Not unless they start pushing for me to believe the same thing. Then I demand proof, I demand facts, I demand REASONS. If that insults them, too bad...the intent is not there, nor is it the basis of my argument, therefore it is not ad hominem. I will not call them idiots, or say they sleep with cats...I will simply refuse to smile blandly and say, "You're so right!"

Surely their becoming offended by your demanding reasoned arguments for their statements of belief is indicative of the fact that they are idiots - so ... maybe you actually *should* be insulting them? :)

Summary: Questioning beliefs isn't an insult unless the question includes an insult:

Example:
Non insult - So, if humans were indeed put on Earth by aliens, where then is their spacecraft?

Insult - So, if humans were indeed put on Earth by aliens, where then is their spacecraft, you cocksucker?
Hehehehehehe...you made me swallow air. :p

Just the debate in the feminism thread was with you two as well, that is all that raised the question. :)

We've debated (both against each other and on the same side) in several threads. She's actually gotten quite upset with me and resorted to what seemed like personal attacks at least once (althout I just assume these days that it must've been a bad hair day or something, since I haven't seen anything other than logical arguments since)

Other than that, no connection.
Did I seriously? What the heck did I say? Oh, and as for the whole bad hair day thing...come one now, if you thought I was a guy, would you say that? I'm sure I was just buzzing on coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....

Your questioning may not appeal to feelings or prejudice, however their reaction to your questioning is such that they will believe that you are. In questioning a belief you are, in effect, attacking the person. From their point of view.

This whole debate turns upon what is considered to be an appeal to feelings and emotions. And it is here that thew two types of people, those with blind faith, and those with reasoned beliefs, will differ.

I would not accuse you of using attacks against the person, in the terms that you use. As you say, this turns on semantics. The problem is that the blind-faither will accuse you of this.
I am willing to make that sacrifice. As much as I can, I try not to offend. When I do, I apologise, and try not to do it again. That's as much as I can do. I no more control another person's perception or emotions that I do the rain (despite all those rumours about Indians and rain dances).

Surely their becoming offended by your demanding reasoned arguments for their statements of belief is indicative of the fact that they are idiots - so ... maybe you actually *should* be insulting them? :)
Nah, they get angrier when you stay reasonable.

I no more control another person's perception or emotions that I do the rain (despite all those rumours about Indians and rain dances).

Then you need to practise more. Some people are easily influenced :)

Nah, they get angrier when you stay reasonable.

Even if you punch them? :D

Just the debate in the feminism thread was with you two as well, that is all that raised the question. :)
Oh yeah, by the way, I spent like an hour typing up a reply to you and you never even read it! Jeez! All that work! I'll admit, I was getting a little righteous, so if you DO choose to read it, ignore that part of it.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7973772&postcount=164

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7974515&postcount=165

Even if you punch them? :D
Now how reasonable is that? Plus, guys just think you're flirting.

Even if you punch them? :D

I think we ran out of impetus, punch me, I need some ;)

Seriously people...do personal attacks (ad hominem) EVER win a debate for you? Why bother? If someone disputes your ideas, why should you take that personally, and then go talking bad about their mama? They're your ideas...they don't represent YOU. Same goes with all the "celebrity" bashing of Moore and Bush...what they do in the privacy of their homes (whether that involves eating copious amounts of fried chicken, or 'unnatural' acts with sheep) should have no bearing on your analysis of their political views. Ad hominem does not provide evidence to back up your points...so if you're just in it for kicks, keep bashing, but don't pretend you're making an analysis. :gundge:
While I agree with your point here, I have realized you lean right, and are therefore the son of satan and your seed should be wiped from the earth.

Oh yeah, by the way, I spent like an hour typing up a reply to you and you never even read it! Jeez! All that work! I'll admit, I was getting a little righteous, so if you DO choose to read it, ignore that part of it.


Sorry, Ill go look now, OK? :(

I think we ran out of impetus, punch me, I need some ;)
Consider yourself punched!

Alright, gotta go, thanks again everyone for a lovely chat!

And remember: "Moxie and a good sense of balance are essential when climbing on a roof." - Nancy Drew

Did I seriously? What the heck did I say?

I don't remember exactly. I just remember it was in a parody thread I made on the gay marriage debate and you were upset that I hadn't included a parody for civil unions. I added one, but you didn't like it and got even more angry. I think the conversation devolved after that.

Oh, and as for the whole bad hair day thing...come one now, if you thought I was a guy, would you say that?

Honestly? Yes. I actually know more guys who worry about their hair than girls. =)

While I agree with your point here, I have realized you lean right, and are therefore the son of satan and your seed should be wiped from the earth.
Ok...just replace right with left, and seed with eggs. Oh yeah, and son with daughter.

Sorry, Ill go look now, OK? :(
That would make me very happy:)

I don't remember exactly. I just remember it was in a parody thread I made on the gay marriage debate and you were upset that I hadn't included a parody for civil unions. I added one, but you didn't like it and got even more angry. I think the conversation devolved after that.


Are you sure that was me? It's not ringing any bells...I know I got pissed on a recent "Do we need men" thread, but I'm not big into marriage and civil unions....though I HAVE discussed it...oh well. Anyway.

Of course, you're headed toward loserville in any debate when the attacks become emotionally biased and insulting as opposed to objective and logical.

On the other hand, we're all emotional beings, and everyone I know here is guilty of letting their emotions betray their intelligence.

The real losers are those that always result to emotional responses or so-called indictments. There's plenty of them, and they're usually fuelled by tumultuous adolescent hormones, so I tend to be forgiving.

Ok...just replace right with left, and seed with eggs. Oh yeah, and son with daughter.
Whoops, thinking of someone else. As a liberal you are my new god. I worship thee.