|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
In the Angelic and Demonic Perceptions thread AdminBuz is complaining that he thought that the topic was intended to refer only to demons (and maybe fallen angels).
quote: But the first half of the OP is about the "good guys". So surely references to them are to be expected and are as relevant to the OP as discussion of demons are. So why the concern ? I would also add that I personally see nothing wrong with dealing with both in a single thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Strictly speaking calling someone a fool in itself is not an ad hominem fallacy .
Your attack on Jar's debating style was - it was an attack on the person rather than the actual point (and in this case Jar was and is entirely correct - to call a document "revisionist" is not the same as saying that it has been revised).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Because in the first case the criticism was being used INSTEAD of argument (it did not apply to the point in question) and in the other it was simply a comment. The first case is a fallacious argument, the other cannot be because it isn't an argument.
quote: I don't doubt that it is but one example of your many, many errors of fact. However it happens to be relevant because it was the point you chose to defend by attacking Jar's debating style.
quote: That doesn't make it right for you to evade his point by attacking his debating style. Which is what happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It's not wrangling. It's explanation. Simply calling someone a fool may be rude, it may be insulting but it isn't a fallacy. But here's a definition if you like:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Or this definition
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.
Or this definition
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.
That's the first three results from googling for "ad hominem fallacy" (with the quotes).
quote: I didn't mention Ray Martinez or CTD either - both of whom are far worse. Nor did I comment on the truth or otherwise of your criticisms of Jar. What I did simply comment on the real meaning of ad hominem - and the fact that you were indulging in it and evading Jar's point. If you're going to accuse someone of bad debating habits - well you ought to remember that huge beam sitting in your eye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: Since my position hasn't shifted one iota it's more likely that the "oversight" was not present in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I'm reading and writing English too - and I summed up and dealt with all the points you seemed to be making.
quote: You mean that if I won't accept your unsupported opinion I wouldn't accept any evidence either. Nice example of poisoning the well.
quote: Since I wasn't advancing an argument for you to discredit your "example" doesn't work.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024