NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed a lot of people throwing around accusations of ad hominem attacks lately, most of which were false accusations.

You see, you worthless piece of unprocessed reeking garbage, insults alone do not constitute a fallacy: this sentence, despite its rude overtones, is still a valid one, and part of my argument. As such, you, should you chose to argue against me, must respond to it, not just write it off as a fallacious ad hominem. An insult is not, and should not be mistaken for, an ad hominem attack.

An ad hominem fallacy is a statement by person B that the argument of person A is wrong or unimportant because of some aspect of person A that does not relate to truthfullness of the argument at hand. It, like any other logical fallacy, can be polite, and can even come to a correct conclusion.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html]Description[/url] of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

link (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)

As my final word, I say to you:

Grow up, you evil supersticious gay moneygrubbing godless homophobic pinko commie!

Grow up, you evil supersticious gay moneygrubbing godless homophobic pinko commie!
How dare you! I'm not supersticious!

I agree, and yet I disagree, you miserable vomitous mass. You see, by constantly presenting the insults and the arguments against the insultee together, you indirectly insinuate that their argument is worthless anyway, since it is made by a mush-minded troglodyte with poor personal hygene or whatnot.

I agree, and yet I disagree, you miserable vomitous mass. You see, by constantly presenting the insults and the arguments against the insultee together, you indirectly insinuate that their argument is worthless anyway, since it is made by a mush-minded troglodyte with poor personal hygene or whatnot.

Quite.

I agree, and yet I disagree, you miserable vomitous mass. You see, by constantly presenting the insults and the arguments against the insultee together, you indirectly insinuate that their argument is worthless anyway, since it is made by a mush-minded troglodyte with poor personal hygene or whatnot.

That made me LOL, you worthless stupid ass moron. Thanks, dumbass.

I agree, and yet I disagree, you miserable vomitous mass. You see, by constantly presenting the insults and the arguments against the insultee together, you indirectly insinuate that their argument is worthless anyway, since it is made by a mush-minded troglodyte with poor personal hygene or whatnot.

That's fair. Then again, the argument all-too-often is being made by such a person.

How would you know, you warthog-faced buffoon?

Watch it guys...

While it's perfectly fine to discuss this particular fallacy, I think we should avoid sligning insults around just because we're kidding around. Don't make the mistake of thinking that total strangers will always be able to take your mock invective in good taste. So we should all keep the main topic in mind as opposed to just blurting out cool sounding insults just because we all happen to be kidding around about it. I understand there's no real flaming going on here, but one can't admit that the door isn't wide open for it.

... you miserable vomitous mass.
LOL! I see someone has watched The Princess Bride at some point or other! :D

Watch it guys...

While it's perfectly fine to discuss this particular fallacy, I think we should avoid sligning insults around just because we're kidding around. Don't make the mistake of thinking that total strangers will always be able to take your mock invective in good taste. So we should all keep the main topic in mind as opposed to just blurting out cool sounding insults just because we all happen to be kidding around about it. I understand there's no real flaming going on here, but one can't admit that the door isn't wide open for it.

You would say that, you're a Mod.

Telling someone that their argument is BS is perfectly legitimate as long as you also argue against it. It is only fallacious if you use insults in place of arguments. Rude, yes. Fallacious, not in the least.

The above post is an example of restating my point more forcefully in hopes that you will be more inclined to think that I am right. Failing this I shall rant and backpedal, call you names, dare you to come out and face me like a man, and THEN make ad hominem attacks. :D

Or, I could support my argument...

Logic is saying that A leads to B.

A logical fallacy, then, is saying incorrectly that A leads to B.

In an ad hominem, A is "you are a _____", and B is "your argument is unimportant/wrong"

In a logically valid attack with an insult, A is "You ignored this this and this data points" and B is "your argument is wrong, you stupid son of a mother of a brother of a sister of a cousin of a nephew of a..."

A is demonstrated, validly, to lead to B. The fact that the argument is then insulted makes no difference, because the logic still holds. Only if it is used in place of logic does insulting become an invalid aspect of a debate.

Watch it guys...

While it's perfectly fine to discuss this particular fallacy, I think we should avoid sligning insults around just because we're kidding around. Don't make the mistake of thinking that total strangers will always be able to take your mock invective in good taste. So we should all keep the main topic in mind as opposed to just blurting out cool sounding insults just because we all happen to be kidding around about it. I understand there's no real flaming going on here, but one can't admit that the door isn't wide open for it.
What a totally preposterous, asinine diatribe, you miserable excuse for a Moderating phoole! :D

"Gay" and "homophobic"? Lemme just say you ain't homophobic, you just heterophobic, staring at my jeans watchin' my genitals bulgin'.

*ahem* That done, I'll explain, perhaps, something about why sometimes ordinary insults are seen as ad hominem, when perhaps they shouldn't strictly be. It's because often if someone comes out with "Look u fuckin gay idiot only a terrorist would think like u do" the other person sees them as attempting to perform character asassination, discrediting someone by calling them an "idiot", a "terrorist" and "gay" (if that were to be regarded as an insult). I believe they're often right to think this - after all, it's common enough in politics and hell, everyday life, to turn the name of a group one doesn't like into a perjorative, semi-insulting term ("liberal"/"conservative", for example) and then, once someone's been put in that group in your mind, to ignore them as discredited. Even when they've got a good point to make, because it's a "Something" making it it's obviously got to be wrong. That's a kind of psychological ad hominem attack, not a logical fallacy, irrelevant since political debates and the like rarely rely on hard logic itself, but a rhetorical technique for discrediting an opponent's opinion in a debate of opinions.

You would say that, you're a Mod.

ROFL! That is the most incredibly perfect reply, given the circumestances, that anyone could possibly have made. :D

heh...

heh..heh

:D

ROFL! That is the most incredibly perfect reply, given the circumestances, that anyone could possibly have made. :D

heh...

heh..heh

:D

Thank you. To be honest, melkor set it up brilliantly.

"Gay" and "homophobic"? Lemme just say you ain't homophobic, you just heterophobic, staring at my jeans watchin' my genitals bulgin'.

*ahem* That done, I'll explain, perhaps, something about why sometimes ordinary insults are seen as ad hominem, when perhaps they shouldn't strictly be. It's because often if someone comes out with "Look u fuckin gay idiot only a terrorist would think like u do" the other person sees them as attempting to perform character asassination, discrediting someone by calling them an "idiot", a "terrorist" and "gay" (if that were to be regarded as an insult). I believe they're often right to think this - after all, it's common enough in politics and hell, everyday life, to turn the name of a group one doesn't like into a perjorative, semi-insulting term ("liberal"/"conservative", for example) and then, once someone's been put in that group in your mind, to ignore them as discredited. Even when they've got a good point to make, because it's a "Something" making it it's obviously got to be wrong. That's a kind of psychological ad hominem attack, not a logical fallacy, irrelevant since political debates and the like rarely rely on hard logic itself, but a rhetorical technique for discrediting an opponent's opinion in a debate of opinions.

1: It was on purpose... you'll also note that I called people supersticious and godless, and moneygrubbing commies.

2: I see your point. In cases like that, I would say that if 'therefore you are wrong' is meant by the argument-free insulting, it is still an ad hominem fallacy, even in absence of actually saying the words "therefore you are wrong. The key thing to look for is the presence of an argument outside of the personal attack, not for the statement that "therefore you are wrong".

Insults may not be an ad hominem attack on an argument, but they are inappropriate for civilized discourse. After all, if one can't show respect for a person, what is to say that one can show respect for a person's opinions?

Respect is something that can be gained by giving it to others. I would say that the corollary applies equally.

I've noticed a lot of people throwing around accusations of ad hominem attacks lately, most of which were false accusations.

You see, you worthless piece of unprocessed reeking garbage, insults alone do not constitute a fallacy: this sentence, despite its rude overtones, is still a valid one, and part of my argument. As such, you, should you chose to argue against me, must respond to it, not just write it off as a fallacious ad hominem. An insult is not, and should not be mistaken for, an ad hominem attack.

An ad hominem fallacy is a statement by person B that the argument of person A is wrong or unimportant because of some aspect of person A that does not relate to truthfullness of the argument at hand. It, like any other logical fallacy, can be polite, and can even come to a correct conclusion.


As my final word, I say to you:

Grow up, you evil supersticious gay moneygrubbing godless homophobic pinko commie!

Feil, you ignorant slut...

Feil, you ignorant slut...
Hehehe! :D

Insults may not be an ad hominem attack on an argument, but they are inappropriate for civilized discourse. After all, if one can't show respect for a person, what is to say that one can show respect for a person's opinions?

Some people just beg for it though. They do! (You know who you are)

Watch it guys...

While it's perfectly fine to discuss this particular fallacy, I think we should avoid sligning insults around just because we're kidding around. Don't make the mistake of thinking that total strangers will always be able to take your mock invective in good taste. So we should all keep the main topic in mind as opposed to just blurting out cool sounding insults just because we all happen to be kidding around about it. I understand there's no real flaming going on here, but one can't admit that the door isn't wide open for it.

While I don't particularly agree with said scary mod, it might be wise not to see how close to the lion cage you can get without a paw in the face.

EDIT: and I would hate to see anybody eaten as an indirect result of my actions... :eek:

Some folks just have to go too far..