Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2018 5:33 AM
190 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Straggler (3 members, 187 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,280 Year: 19,103/29,783 Month: 1,048/2,043 Week: 93/507 Day: 4/89 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5603
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 181 of 199 (423956)
09-24-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Taz
09-24-2007 8:11 PM


Re: Permanent Suspension = Ban
IP ban involves a lot more people than just the person in question.

Perhaps. But unless you ban the IP, the person can just endlessly change names, i.e Vashgun, HEWG, Ihategod, etc.

I was banned by a well known Christian website's chatroom for asking if they had a forum to challenge the fairness of a moderator's decision. They said no and then proceeded to make some terrible comment about members of the board. I can't remember what she called them verbatim, but it was something like "peasants," or something extremely derogatory and uncalled for, especially for an avowed Christian. I responded, "Don't you think that's a little fascist?"

Then they banned me. :laugh:

Literally, that's all I said.

Point is, they banned my IP address, because I wanted to see if I could get back in using another name. Very effective.


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Taz, posted 09-24-2007 8:11 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by kuresu, posted 09-24-2007 10:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 188 by Taz, posted 09-25-2007 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 494 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 182 of 199 (423958)
09-24-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Hyroglyphx
09-24-2007 10:47 PM


Re: Permanent Suspension = Ban
Aren't there some shifting IP addresses?

By the way, the forum software allows you to change your name. So the example of Vashgun's multiple names (or say, Jon's massive number of names) isn't valid.

Try rob, or cold foreign object. Rob was at one point scottness--but as a totally different account that was later merged. Cold Foreign Object was Herepton, but Ray (Herepton) started the CFO as a totally new account that has now been merged.

Did you ever try joining up from a different internet connection?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-24-2007 10:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14564
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 183 of 199 (423995)
09-25-2007 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by crashfrog
09-24-2007 8:15 PM


Re: The Nature of an Admin
quote:

I think you're ignoring the fact that, invariably, people are being called "fools" as part of an implication that they've just advanced a bad argument.

No, I'm not. If you throw in the world "fool" your answer doesn't become any less right. You can't say that an incidental comment turns a valid response into a fallacious response.

There is a big difference between saying that someone is a fool, implying that their argument is bad and showing that their argument is bad and concluding that they are a fool. The former is a fallacy, the latter is quite definitely not.

I repeat my point - an incidental comment cannot be a fallacy because it is not an attempt to rebut an argument. Thus simply using the world fool cannot in itself be considered an example of the ad hominem fallacy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2007 8:15 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 10:06 AM PaulK has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 199 (424037)
09-25-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by PaulK
09-25-2007 3:04 AM


Re: The Nature of an Admin
If you throw in the world "fool" your answer doesn't become any less right. You can't say that an incidental comment turns a valid response into a fallacious response.

I'm not saying that it does. But if I write the following post:

quote:
You're wrong because Lewis discovered such-and-such in his landmark paper "Lewis et al., The Effect of Stuff on the Other Thing, Journal of Stuff (2006)". You've completely misrepresented my argument to you and debated with a strawman. You're also wrong because you're an idiot.

I see essentially three arguments in there; the evidentiary argument (the evidence contradicts you), the structural argument (you've failed to support your own position because your arguments were fallacious) and the ad hominem argument (you're wrong because of your loathsome personal qualities.)

The last of those arguments is fallacious. It's the argumentum ad hominem. That can, to some degree, be ignored because of the fact that my post contains two other arguments that are not fallacious, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that I've combined three arguments, one fallacious, into a single post.

The former is a fallacy, the latter is quite definitely not.

I think it's bad logic, at least, to imply that one bad argument or one mistake - or even one act of dishonesty - makes someone a fool or a liar.

Some amount of goading is necessary to hold someone's attention, to keep them coming back with posts, to get them to respond to your arguments rather than simply ignoring them. But, strictly speaking, those kinds of personal attacks do constitute argumentum ad hominem, because the implication is that someone's statements can be dismissed simply because the speaker is a moron, or is assumed to have some other loathsome personal quality. (You're a creationist. You're a Christian. You're an atheist. Etc.)

I repeat my point - an incidental comment cannot be a fallacy because it is not an attempt to rebut an argument.

In my experience that's how they're being invariably used - "I don't have to explain how your assertions are wrong, because we've established that you're an idiot." That does constitute argumentum ad hominem. That a post may additionally contain legitimate rebuttals against a point in addition doesn't change the fact that the post also contains a fallacious ad hominem argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2007 3:04 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 09-25-2007 10:35 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2007 2:00 PM crashfrog has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 15791
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 185 of 199 (424049)
09-25-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by crashfrog
09-25-2007 10:06 AM


Re: The Nature of an Admin
crashfrog writes:

I think it's bad logic, at least, to imply that one bad argument or one mistake - or even one act of dishonesty - makes someone a fool or a liar.

In the present context, the person was called a fool because of a lifetime of (perceived) foolishness - not "one act". There may be a technical fallacy in there somewhere, but I don't think it's "bad logic" to make a comment about consistent behaviour.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 10:06 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14564
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 186 of 199 (424078)
09-25-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by crashfrog
09-25-2007 10:06 AM


ad hominem fallacy
quote:

I'm not saying that it does. But if I write the following post:

quote:
You're wrong because Lewis discovered such-and-such in his landmark paper "Lewis et al., The Effect of Stuff on the Other Thing, Journal of Stuff (2006)". You've completely misrepresented my argument to you and debated with a strawman. You're also wrong because you're an idiot.


If you write THAT you've got an ad hominem by the standards that I've stated. If you suggest otherwise you're arguing against a strawman. If you don't then the kindest thing I can say is that your argument is incomplete because you didn't manage to make a relevant point with that.

quote:

I think it's bad logic, at least, to imply that one bad argument or one mistake - or even one act of dishonesty - makes someone a fool or a liar.

And that's a red herring. Whether the conclusion is justified or not it isn't relevant to whether there is an ad hominem fallacy or not.

quote:

In my experience that's how they're being invariably used - "I don't have to explain how your assertions are wrong, because we've established that you're an idiot." That does constitute argumentum ad hominem. That a post may additionally contain legitimate rebuttals against a point in addition doesn't change the fact that the post also contains a fallacious ad hominem argument.

I very much doubt that that is how they are "invariably" used. In fact if the points actually HAVE been rebutted you can't simply assume that calling the opponent an idiot is being used that way - not without some positive evidence.

Edited by PaulK, : replaced title with a more accurate one


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 10:06 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 2:13 PM PaulK has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 199 (424082)
09-25-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by PaulK
09-25-2007 2:00 PM


Re: ad hominem fallacy
If you write THAT you've got an ad hominem by the standards that I've stated.

I agree. But I was just making explicit what is mostly implicit around here: "You're an idiot so your argument is wrong." That's where most of the name-calling happens, which is why it's ad-hom.

I very much doubt that that is how they are "invariably" used.

Well, I guess you can either read plain statements in English, or you can be deliberately obtuse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2007 2:00 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2007 2:38 PM crashfrog has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 188 of 199 (424087)
09-25-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Hyroglyphx
09-24-2007 10:47 PM


Re: Permanent Suspension = Ban
nem writes:

Perhaps. But unless you ban the IP, the person can just endlessly change names, i.e Vashgun, HEWG, Ihategod, etc.


So?

IP banning not only bans the person from commenting on EvC but also everyone else that happens to be using a computer from the same institution. By IP banning, we effectively block out god knows how many potential future members.

Point is, they banned my IP address, because I wanted to see if I could get back in using another name. Very effective.

Trust me, with a few clicks, I can very easily get around this obstacle.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-24-2007 10:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14564
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 189 of 199 (424088)
09-25-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by crashfrog
09-25-2007 2:13 PM


Re: ad hominem fallacy
quote:

I agree. But I was just making explicit what is mostly implicit around here: "You're an idiot so your argument is wrong." That's where most of the name-calling happens, which is why it's ad-hom.

In other words you didn't mean it to address a relevant point. The relevant questions are when it is reasonable to read it as implicit and if such implicit use is as common as you claim.

quote:

Well, I guess you can either read plain statements in English, or you can be deliberately obtuse.

More accurately one can read charitably or with an eye to finding fault - quite possibly to the extent of finding faults that aren't there.

You've given me absolutely no reason to assume that anything I've said is wrong. You haven't given one example of what I am supposedly ignoring. And neither of us know how I'd evaluate an actual example of the sort of thing you're talking about. In my case because you haven't actually produced one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 2:13 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 5:37 PM PaulK has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 199 (424122)
09-25-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by PaulK
09-25-2007 2:38 PM


Re: ad hominem fallacy
In other words you didn't mean it to address a relevant point.

I meant all along to address a specific deficiency of your argument, and I've succeeded in doing so. Maybe you got a little lost along the way but my point from the get-go a few posts back has always been that you're nominally correct that just calling somebody a "fool" isn't strictly argumentum ad hominem, but that's irrelevant since invariably, people are being called names in order to discredit their arguments.

That is ad hominem, and I think we both agree on that.

You've given me absolutely no reason to assume that anything I've said is wrong.

It was never my intent to show that you are wrong, because you're not wrong. You just overlooked something, and I have attempted to correct your oversight. I believe I have done so, since now you appear to agree with me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2007 2:38 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2007 6:08 PM crashfrog has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14564
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 191 of 199 (424125)
09-25-2007 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by crashfrog
09-25-2007 5:37 PM


Re: ad hominem fallacy
quote:

I meant all along to address a specific deficiency of your argument, and I've succeeded in doing so.

It doesn't seem to me that you have. And your example - which was the specific point under discussion didn't really address the point you claim to be making.

quote:

Maybe you got a little lost along the way but my point from the get-go a few posts back has always been that you're nominally correct that just calling somebody a "fool" isn't strictly argumentum ad hominem, but that's irrelevant since invariably, people are being called names in order to discredit their arguments.

That certainly isn't always true. And I'm far from sure that it's even usually true - or even only usually true here. ANd so far we have only your assertion that it is.

quote:

It was never my intent to show that you are wrong, because you're not wrong. You just overlooked something, and I have attempted to correct your oversight. I believe I have done so, since now you appear to agree with me.

Since my position hasn't shifted one iota it's more likely that the "oversight" was not present in the first place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 5:37 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 6:33 PM PaulK has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 199 (424129)
09-25-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by PaulK
09-25-2007 6:08 PM


Re: ad hominem fallacy
Easy, killer. I appreciate that you see it differently.

I don't know how we could conduct any sort of rigorous survey about the use of ad-hom around here, particularly starting from an adversarial position. It's probably pointless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2007 6:08 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2007 2:11 AM crashfrog has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14564
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 193 of 199 (424180)
09-26-2007 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by crashfrog
09-25-2007 6:33 PM


Re: ad hominem fallacy
So essentially your whole point is that you infer ad hominem in many uses of "fool" or similar comments. But you won't even give a fictional example of the sort of thing you're referring to - let alone an actual example. Which is odd when you are prepared to give irrelevant fictional examples. Now if you had clearly said that and that it was just your opinion which you had no intention of supporting this could have been a shorter conversation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 6:33 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 9:59 PM PaulK has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 623 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 194 of 199 (424425)
09-26-2007 9:53 PM


Would someone do me a favor and pop in on trossthree Message 181 and remind him that we discourage chat-like posts?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 199 (424427)
09-26-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by PaulK
09-26-2007 2:11 AM


Re: ad hominem fallacy
It's funny. You're using words in English, I can see that clearly - what I can't see is how any of that addresses any of the issues I raised in response to you.

So essentially your whole point is that you infer ad hominem in many uses of "fool" or similar comments. But you won't even give a fictional example of the sort of thing you're referring to - let alone an actual example.

If you're determined to be so obtuse that you'll deny that people call people "fool" in response to arguments that they hope to discredit, there's absolutely no example - fictional or authentic - I can present that you simply won't be more obtuse in response to.

Like I said - you can either read plain statements in English, or you can be deliberately obtuse to their obvious context and meaning. It would be pretty weird indeed for someone to agree with another person's argument and yet call them a moron at the end of it. (That's usually done in jest.)

Look, I'll do it right now, dipshit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2007 2:11 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2007 2:08 AM crashfrog has responded

RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018