Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
498 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (6 members, 492 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,604 Year: 5,250/14,102 Month: 171/677 Week: 30/26 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 199 (422962)
09-18-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Omnivorous
09-18-2007 10:11 PM


Re: Content not the only issue
You oldsters didn't recognize vocalist (and "pop tart") Christina Aguilera?

Turn on VH1 once in a while! It's the channel with all the loud noise that makes you yell at those young punks to get off your lawn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Omnivorous, posted 09-18-2007 10:11 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Omnivorous, posted 09-18-2007 11:27 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 155 of 199 (422973)
09-19-2007 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Omnivorous
09-18-2007 11:27 PM


Re: Content not the only issue
:)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Omnivorous, posted 09-18-2007 11:27 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 180 of 199 (423921)
09-24-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by PaulK
09-24-2007 6:15 PM


Re: The Nature of an Admin
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.

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.

When you tell someone that they're an idiot, and as part of that you either implicitly or explicitly use their idiocy to justify the dismissal of their argument, then you are committing argumentum ad hominem.

Very rarely, here, do people call each other names as part of agreement with their argument. Any time that someone is being called a "fool", they're invariably being told that they're wrong, too, and that is the argumentum ad hominem, no question about it. When you say "you're wrong because you're an idiot", that's the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2007 6:15 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2007 3:04 AM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 197 of 199 (424455)
09-27-2007 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by PaulK
09-27-2007 2:08 AM


Re: ad hominem fallacy
You mean that if I won't accept your unsupported opinion I wouldn't accept any evidence either.

Well, you just proved me right, didn't you?

Since I wasn't advancing an argument for you to discredit your "example" doesn't work.

If you're not defending a position, precisely what are you doing? Masturbating? Thanks for the waste of time, I guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2007 2:08 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021