Debate Now Okay, let's talk about ad hominem.

[Foxfyre]

What should be obvious to people is that our sensitivity towards ad homs can depend upon the degree towards which we invest our egos in political identification. If we see politics as identity and the political label is attacked, we feel attacked. The more rigid and doctrinaire our views, the less latitude we give others towards diverging from them, and the more we see ourselves in terms of political tribe, the quicker we are to attack the other tribe.

There are precious few people in this forum who approach politics from the standpoint of understanding the actual philosophies at all, as most operate from a very conformist perspective according to the group towards which they feel an affinity. Ideas are seldom challenged when they arise from one's own and automatically challenged when they arise from the other, and this has resulted in a large number of sacred cows that are never challenged by those who profer them.

What is a "libtard", anyway? Who are the actual liberals in his forum? Are the liberals actually retarded, or is the person indulging in the statement only revealing their own level of intelligence? What, if anything, is the relationship between political identification and intelligence?

When people simplify the world to binary, and see little beyond some monumental struggle between "liberal" and "conservative" complete with an entire panoply of positions that are assumed automatically, are they acting as an intelligent observer of the human condition or are they simply acting as a warrior? I see many warriors in this forum. I see few who understand the underpinnings of the political philosophy they claim to represent.

.

Intelligent observer of the human condition or warrior. Talk about binary While I agree to your point that "some" lean to one or the other... many others actively choose to simplify or not on a post by post basis. I find hope in this human condition.

This one you got your point across and you used no adhominem to do it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Only in those parts were the inhabitants don't understand that the Founding Fathers were liberals.

Classical liberals who could be very conservative, even reactionary, on matters of race, slavery, the working man, and women.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Ironic!

 

[RKMBrown]

Classical liberals who could be very conservative, even reactionary, on matters of race, slavery, the working man, and women.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Again off topic. Let's keep the train on the track. So in the interest of doing that, let's use your post as an example to discuss:

Whether or not your statement is true here, IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem.

How could you phrase it so you can make your point without it being ad hominem?

I suggest that you could say: "Naw, I just think you just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." This moves it out of ad hominem. The other person may still see it as insulting, but you own and take responsibility for your own opinion instead of assigning a personal characteristic to him. The difference is subtle but would be obvious to a debate judge.

And say "I think some don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Some folks get locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and they just don't understand why." This removes it from ad hominem because there is no inference of the mindset or character of the other person. Again the person may take it personally and accuse you of attacking him personally, but you can honestly say that the statement did not reference him specifically and if he takes it personally that is up to him.

My statement did not make any such inference. By your own "rules" for what you say ad hom is in this post. Your post is an ad hom reply of my post. Nudge.

In my very humble opinion... Making suppositions with regard to meanings or inferences of others is discussion, not ad hom.

ad hominem - 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. (Websters)

My statement did not appeal to "feelings or prejudices". More particularly my first sentence appealed directly to intellect, specifically to an understanding of "the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." My second sentence also appealed to indirectly to intellect, that of a need to understand why ones brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions."

Additionally, with regard to whether my statement included an attack on my opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made, I invite you to explain how you went from my two sentences directly to your ad hom on me stating that my post was an ad hom

 

[RKMBrown]

What should be obvious to people is that our sensitivity towards ad homs can depend upon the degree towards which we invest our egos in political identification. If we see politics as identity and the political label is attacked, we feel attacked. The more rigid and doctrinaire our views, the less latitude we give others towards diverging from them, and the more we see ourselves in terms of political tribe, the quicker we are to attack the other tribe.

There are precious few people in this forum who approach politics from the standpoint of understanding the actual philosophies at all, as most operate from a very conformist perspective according to the group towards which they feel an affinity. Ideas are seldom challenged when they arise from one's own and automatically challenged when they arise from the other, and this has resulted in a large number of sacred cows that are never challenged by those who profer them.

What is a "libtard", anyway? Who are the actual liberals in his forum? Are the liberals actually retarded, or is the person indulging in the statement only revealing their own level of intelligence? What, if anything, is the relationship between political identification and intelligence?

When people simplify the world to binary, and see little beyond some monumental struggle between "liberal" and "conservative" complete with an entire panoply of positions that are assumed automatically, are they acting as an intelligent observer of the human condition or are they simply acting as a warrior? I see many warriors in this forum. I see few who understand the underpinnings of the political philosophy they claim to represent.

.

Intelligent observer of the human condition or warrior. Talk about binary While I agree to your point that "some" lean to one or the other... many others actively choose to simplify or not on a post by post basis. I find hope in this human condition.

This one you got your point across and you used no adhominem to do it.

Yet my argument is the same. An appeal to intellect, with a subtle poke. In this post I hid the poke behind smiles and hope But essentially I'm making the same exact same argument, that we assume we understand epic binary problems, only later to find out that the problem was not binary at all, but that the working of our brain has falsely convinced us that it was binary.

 

[RKMBrown]

Classical liberals who could be very conservative, even reactionary, on matters of race, slavery, the working man, and women.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Ironic!

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me. I can however project that you meant it as an insult. But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

Basically this points out my earlier post, wrt. contexts.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Again off topic. Let's keep the train on the track. So in the interest of doing that, let's use your post as an example to discuss:

Whether or not your statement is true here, IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem.

How could you phrase it so you can make your point without it being ad hominem?

I suggest that you could say: "Naw, I just think you just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." This moves it out of ad hominem. The other person may still see it as insulting, but you own and take responsibility for your own opinion instead of assigning a personal characteristic to him. The difference is subtle but would be obvious to a debate judge.

And say "I think some don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Some folks get locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and they just don't understand why." This removes it from ad hominem because there is no inference of the mindset or character of the other person. Again the person may take it personally and accuse you of attacking him personally, but you can honestly say that the statement did not reference him specifically and if he takes it personally that is up to him.

My statement did not make any such inference. By your own "rules" for what you say ad hom is in this post. Your post is an ad hom reply of my post. Nudge.

In my very humble opinion... Making suppositions with regard to meanings or inferences of others is discussion, not ad hom.

ad hominem - 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. (Websters)

My statement did not appeal to "feelings or prejudices". More particularly my first sentence appealed directly to intellect, specifically to an understanding of "the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." My second sentence also appealed to indirectly to intellect, that of a need to understand why ones brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions."

Additionally, with regard to whether my statement included an attack on my opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made, I invite you to explain how you went from my two sentences directly to your ad hom on me stating that my post was an ad hom

No, my comments about your post were about your post and not about you personally. So they are of course subject to challenge as anybody's post is, and you are certainly within your right to correct any error you can find in my comments, but I did not characterize YOU in any way shape or form. So whether or not my comments are correct, they were not ad hominem.

Your post did draw an assumption about the opponents state of mind or character and that is what made it ad hominem. I am using the broadened definition and explanation of ad hominem as provided in the OP. The shortened dictionary definitions are too incomplete, and too many only express one or two aspects of ad hominem to be all that useful in this discussion.

To avoid ad hominem we need to comment on or attack, if appropriate, the person's post and leave the person's motive or mindset or political leanings or other perceived prejudices and/or biases out of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What should be obvious to people is that our sensitivity towards ad homs can depend upon the degree towards which we invest our egos in political identification. If we see politics as identity and the political label is attacked, we feel attacked. The more rigid and doctrinaire our views, the less latitude we give others towards diverging from them, and the more we see ourselves in terms of political tribe, the quicker we are to attack the other tribe.

There are precious few people in this forum who approach politics from the standpoint of understanding the actual philosophies at all, as most operate from a very conformist perspective according to the group towards which they feel an affinity. Ideas are seldom challenged when they arise from one's own and automatically challenged when they arise from the other, and this has resulted in a large number of sacred cows that are never challenged by those who profer them.

What is a "libtard", anyway? Who are the actual liberals in his forum? Are the liberals actually retarded, or is the person indulging in the statement only revealing their own level of intelligence? What, if anything, is the relationship between political identification and intelligence?

When people simplify the world to binary, and see little beyond some monumental struggle between "liberal" and "conservative" complete with an entire panoply of positions that are assumed automatically, are they acting as an intelligent observer of the human condition or are they simply acting as a warrior? I see many warriors in this forum. I see few who understand the underpinnings of the political philosophy they claim to represent.

.

Intelligent observer of the human condition or warrior. Talk about binary While I agree to your point that "some" lean to one or the other... many others actively choose to simplify or not on a post by post basis. I find hope in this human condition.

This one you got your point across and you used no adhominem to do it.

Yet my argument is the same. An appeal to intellect, with a subtle poke. In this post I hid the poke behind smiles and hope But essentially I'm making the same exact same argument, that we assume we understand epic binary problems, only later to find out that the problem was not binary at all, but that the working of our brain has falsely convinced us that it was binary.

LOL. Okay, can you put that in plain English for us who are more simple minded?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If the Founding Fathers were alive today which of them would embrace extreme conservatism as practiced today?

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Ironic!

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me. I can however project that you meant it as an insult. But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

Basically this points out my earlier post, wrt. contexts.

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me

You got that part right.

I can however project that you meant it as an insult.

You got that part wrong.

But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

And you got that wrong too.

In essence my use of the term ironic was in response to your last sentence;

"Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why"

That was an ad hom on your part and it was ironic because you were projecting your own shortcoming.

For the record I never take anything posted in this forum personally because I always consider the source. I am well aware that many posters use vulgarities, insults and ad homs because they cannot actually defend their positions. I consider those responses to be tacit admissions of failure on their part and yes, it amuses me which accounts for the ironic chuckle on my part.

 

[RKMBrown]

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Again off topic. Let's keep the train on the track. So in the interest of doing that, let's use your post as an example to discuss:

Whether or not your statement is true here, IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem.

How could you phrase it so you can make your point without it being ad hominem?

I suggest that you could say: "Naw, I just think you just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." This moves it out of ad hominem. The other person may still see it as insulting, but you own and take responsibility for your own opinion instead of assigning a personal characteristic to him. The difference is subtle but would be obvious to a debate judge.

And say "I think some don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Some folks get locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and they just don't understand why." This removes it from ad hominem because there is no inference of the mindset or character of the other person. Again the person may take it personally and accuse you of attacking him personally, but you can honestly say that the statement did not reference him specifically and if he takes it personally that is up to him.

My statement did not make any such inference. By your own "rules" for what you say ad hom is in this post. Your post is an ad hom reply of my post. Nudge.

In my very humble opinion... Making suppositions with regard to meanings or inferences of others is discussion, not ad hom.

ad hominem - 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. (Websters)

My statement did not appeal to "feelings or prejudices". More particularly my first sentence appealed directly to intellect, specifically to an understanding of "the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." My second sentence also appealed to indirectly to intellect, that of a need to understand why ones brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions."

Additionally, with regard to whether my statement included an attack on my opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made, I invite you to explain how you went from my two sentences directly to your ad hom on me stating that my post was an ad hom

No, my comments about your post were about your post and not about you personally. So they are of course subject to challenge as anybody's post is, and you are certainly within your right to correct any error you can find in my comments, but I did not characterize YOU in any way shape or form. So whether or not my comments are correct, they were not ad hominem.

Your post did draw an assumption about the opponents state of mind or character and that is what made it ad hominem. I am using the broadened definition and explanation of ad hominem as provided in the OP. The shortened dictionary definitions are too incomplete, and too many only express one or two aspects of ad hominem to be all that useful in this discussion.

To avoid ad hominem we need to comment on or attack, if appropriate, the person's post and leave the person's motive or mindset or political leanings or other perceived prejudices and/or biases out of it.

You said "IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem." Thus you are stating for a fact that your opinion is that I made an ad hom attack in that post, which is an assumption about my my state of mind or character and that is what makes your assertion that my post was ad hom an ad hom. Your OP has broadened ad hom, with these new generalizations, to any statement whatsoever in disagreement with another view.

Your further statements here in this post, indicate to me that you believe one can hide a personal attack by broadening the attack to a general (nudge) group of people for which that person is a clearly a member. No. Attacking a group of people for which the person is clearly a member with an ad hom attack does not go around the fact that you are making an ad hom attack. It is just an attempt to go around the "personal" rule by making the incorrect assumption that personal means individual.

 

[RKMBrown]

What should be obvious to people is that our sensitivity towards ad homs can depend upon the degree towards which we invest our egos in political identification. If we see politics as identity and the political label is attacked, we feel attacked. The more rigid and doctrinaire our views, the less latitude we give others towards diverging from them, and the more we see ourselves in terms of political tribe, the quicker we are to attack the other tribe.

There are precious few people in this forum who approach politics from the standpoint of understanding the actual philosophies at all, as most operate from a very conformist perspective according to the group towards which they feel an affinity. Ideas are seldom challenged when they arise from one's own and automatically challenged when they arise from the other, and this has resulted in a large number of sacred cows that are never challenged by those who profer them.

What is a "libtard", anyway? Who are the actual liberals in his forum? Are the liberals actually retarded, or is the person indulging in the statement only revealing their own level of intelligence? What, if anything, is the relationship between political identification and intelligence?

When people simplify the world to binary, and see little beyond some monumental struggle between "liberal" and "conservative" complete with an entire panoply of positions that are assumed automatically, are they acting as an intelligent observer of the human condition or are they simply acting as a warrior? I see many warriors in this forum. I see few who understand the underpinnings of the political philosophy they claim to represent.

.

Intelligent observer of the human condition or warrior. Talk about binary While I agree to your point that "some" lean to one or the other... many others actively choose to simplify or not on a post by post basis. I find hope in this human condition.

This one you got your point across and you used no adhominem to do it.

Yet my argument is the same. An appeal to intellect, with a subtle poke. In this post I hid the poke behind smiles and hope But essentially I'm making the same exact same argument, that we assume we understand epic binary problems, only later to find out that the problem was not binary at all, but that the working of our brain has falsely convinced us that it was binary.

LOL. Okay, can you put that in plain English for us who are more simple minded?

Sure.. Sometimes we are wrong. Usually we are wrong for a good reason. That usual reason is that we either do not have all the facts, or in some cases, that our brain is not giving weight to some of the important facts.

This happens a lot. It is how our brains work.

Our brains filter out facts to make decisions binary.

We must understand this problem, and overcome it.

Think red light.. it's important for you to decide to go or not go, to go by the rules or break the rules. You will make a binary decision. But it's not simple or black and white. Sometimes you need more facts as to whether you will break the rules or not. Or maybe just "slow" down... or turn to leave the road to avoid a crash. Your autonomic system may push you into believing it's a binary decision. You may have been taught that it is a binary decision. That may make it easier for you to make a decision. But through learning you can train your brain to do a better job than just making binary decisions based on insufficient information.

Applying my red light example. You may think a statement is ad hom or not ad hom... but I'm telling you that in most cases you need more information, such as context, to make that decision.

 

[Foxfyre]

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Again off topic. Let's keep the train on the track. So in the interest of doing that, let's use your post as an example to discuss:

Whether or not your statement is true here, IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem.

How could you phrase it so you can make your point without it being ad hominem?

I suggest that you could say: "Naw, I just think you just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." This moves it out of ad hominem. The other person may still see it as insulting, but you own and take responsibility for your own opinion instead of assigning a personal characteristic to him. The difference is subtle but would be obvious to a debate judge.

And say "I think some don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Some folks get locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and they just don't understand why." This removes it from ad hominem because there is no inference of the mindset or character of the other person. Again the person may take it personally and accuse you of attacking him personally, but you can honestly say that the statement did not reference him specifically and if he takes it personally that is up to him.

My statement did not make any such inference. By your own "rules" for what you say ad hom is in this post. Your post is an ad hom reply of my post. Nudge.

In my very humble opinion... Making suppositions with regard to meanings or inferences of others is discussion, not ad hom.

ad hominem - 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. (Websters)

My statement did not appeal to "feelings or prejudices". More particularly my first sentence appealed directly to intellect, specifically to an understanding of "the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." My second sentence also appealed to indirectly to intellect, that of a need to understand why ones brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions."

Additionally, with regard to whether my statement included an attack on my opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made, I invite you to explain how you went from my two sentences directly to your ad hom on me stating that my post was an ad hom

No, my comments about your post were about your post and not about you personally. So they are of course subject to challenge as anybody's post is, and you are certainly within your right to correct any error you can find in my comments, but I did not characterize YOU in any way shape or form. So whether or not my comments are correct, they were not ad hominem.

Your post did draw an assumption about the opponents state of mind or character and that is what made it ad hominem. I am using the broadened definition and explanation of ad hominem as provided in the OP. The shortened dictionary definitions are too incomplete, and too many only express one or two aspects of ad hominem to be all that useful in this discussion.

To avoid ad hominem we need to comment on or attack, if appropriate, the person's post and leave the person's motive or mindset or political leanings or other perceived prejudices and/or biases out of it.

You said "IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem." Thus you are stating for a fact that your opinion is that I made an ad hom attack in that post, which is an assumption about my my state of mind or character and that is what makes your assertion that my post was ad hom an ad hom. Your OP has broadened ad hom, with these new generalizations, to any statement whatsoever in disagreement with another view.

Your further statements here in this post, indicate to me that you believe one can hide a personal attack by broadening the attack to a general (nudge) group of people for which that person is a clearly a member. No. Attacking a group of people for which the person is clearly a member with an ad hom attack does not go around the fact that you are making an ad hom attack. It is just an attempt to go around the "personal" rule by making the incorrect assumption that personal means individual.

No. Judging a statement to be ad hominem--which doesn't have to be an 'attack' by the way--in no way reflects on your motive, your character, or your state of mind in making the statement. It addresses the statement directly.

It is no different than saying,

"Your statement is insulting."
"Your statement is incorrect."
"Your statement is thought provoking."
"Your statement is hilarious."
"Your statement is right on."

Or any variations of the above. None refer to you personally but refer strictly to your action or the comment that you posted.

Saying "That is stupid" is not at all the same thing as saying "You are stupid." See the difference?

 

[RKMBrown]

The same number that would embrace extreme authoritarian socialism as practiced today. None.

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Ironic!

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me. I can however project that you meant it as an insult. But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

Basically this points out my earlier post, wrt. contexts.

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me

You got that part right.

I can however project that you meant it as an insult.

You got that part wrong.

But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

And you got that wrong too.

In essence my use of the term ironic was in response to your last sentence;

"Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why"

That was an ad hom on your part and it was ironic because you were projecting your own shortcoming.

For the record I never take anything posted in this forum personally because I always consider the source. I am well aware that many posters use vulgarities, insults and ad homs because they cannot actually defend their positions. I consider those responses to be tacit admissions of failure on their part and yes, it amuses me which accounts for the ironic chuckle on my part.

Why is not being locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions a shortcoming? As to the "I can project" sentence you may not understand the difference between "can" and "do." Might want to look that up.

As for my statement, it was just a statement of the facts as I see them. Not ad hom at all.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Again off topic. Let's keep the train on the track. So in the interest of doing that, let's use your post as an example to discuss:

Whether or not your statement is true here, IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem.

How could you phrase it so you can make your point without it being ad hominem?

I suggest that you could say: "Naw, I just think you just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." This moves it out of ad hominem. The other person may still see it as insulting, but you own and take responsibility for your own opinion instead of assigning a personal characteristic to him. The difference is subtle but would be obvious to a debate judge.

And say "I think some don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Some folks get locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and they just don't understand why." This removes it from ad hominem because there is no inference of the mindset or character of the other person. Again the person may take it personally and accuse you of attacking him personally, but you can honestly say that the statement did not reference him specifically and if he takes it personally that is up to him.

My statement did not make any such inference. By your own "rules" for what you say ad hom is in this post. Your post is an ad hom reply of my post. Nudge.

In my very humble opinion... Making suppositions with regard to meanings or inferences of others is discussion, not ad hom.

ad hominem - 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. (Websters)

My statement did not appeal to "feelings or prejudices". More particularly my first sentence appealed directly to intellect, specifically to an understanding of "the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." My second sentence also appealed to indirectly to intellect, that of a need to understand why ones brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions."

Additionally, with regard to whether my statement included an attack on my opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made, I invite you to explain how you went from my two sentences directly to your ad hom on me stating that my post was an ad hom

No, my comments about your post were about your post and not about you personally. So they are of course subject to challenge as anybody's post is, and you are certainly within your right to correct any error you can find in my comments, but I did not characterize YOU in any way shape or form. So whether or not my comments are correct, they were not ad hominem.

Your post did draw an assumption about the opponents state of mind or character and that is what made it ad hominem. I am using the broadened definition and explanation of ad hominem as provided in the OP. The shortened dictionary definitions are too incomplete, and too many only express one or two aspects of ad hominem to be all that useful in this discussion.

To avoid ad hominem we need to comment on or attack, if appropriate, the person's post and leave the person's motive or mindset or political leanings or other perceived prejudices and/or biases out of it.

You said "IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem." Thus you are stating for a fact that your opinion is that I made an ad hom attack in that post, which is an assumption about my my state of mind or character and that is what makes your assertion that my post was ad hom an ad hom. Your OP has broadened ad hom, with these new generalizations, to any statement whatsoever in disagreement with another view.

Your further statements here in this post, indicate to me that you believe one can hide a personal attack by broadening the attack to a general (nudge) group of people for which that person is a clearly a member. No. Attacking a group of people for which the person is clearly a member with an ad hom attack does not go around the fact that you are making an ad hom attack. It is just an attempt to go around the "personal" rule by making the incorrect assumption that personal means individual.

No. Judging a statement to be ad hominem--which doesn't have to be an 'attack' by the way--in no way reflects on your motive, your character, or your state of mind in making the statement. It addresses the statement directly.

It is no different than saying,

"Your statement is insulting."
"Your statement is incorrect."
"Your statement is thought provoking."
"Your statement is hilarious."
"Your statement is right on."

Or any variations of the above. None refer to you personally but refer strictly to your action or the comment that you posted.

Saying "That is stupid" is not at all the same thing as saying "You are stupid." See the difference?

Nonsense. Saying black people are stupid to a black person is the same as saying you are stupid. Saying your statements are insulting is the same as saying you are insulting. Saying the things you do, say, and believe are all stupid, is the same as saying you are stupid. You are proposing that moving an adjective from one person to an object produced by the person somehow disassociates the understood association between the person and the object.

Only if the person that produced that object says that the object itself does not "reflect" himself at all do you get to disassociate the object from the person.

 

[Foxfyre]

What should be obvious to people is that our sensitivity towards ad homs can depend upon the degree towards which we invest our egos in political identification. If we see politics as identity and the political label is attacked, we feel attacked. The more rigid and doctrinaire our views, the less latitude we give others towards diverging from them, and the more we see ourselves in terms of political tribe, the quicker we are to attack the other tribe.

There are precious few people in this forum who approach politics from the standpoint of understanding the actual philosophies at all, as most operate from a very conformist perspective according to the group towards which they feel an affinity. Ideas are seldom challenged when they arise from one's own and automatically challenged when they arise from the other, and this has resulted in a large number of sacred cows that are never challenged by those who profer them.

What is a "libtard", anyway? Who are the actual liberals in his forum? Are the liberals actually retarded, or is the person indulging in the statement only revealing their own level of intelligence? What, if anything, is the relationship between political identification and intelligence?

When people simplify the world to binary, and see little beyond some monumental struggle between "liberal" and "conservative" complete with an entire panoply of positions that are assumed automatically, are they acting as an intelligent observer of the human condition or are they simply acting as a warrior? I see many warriors in this forum. I see few who understand the underpinnings of the political philosophy they claim to represent.

.

Intelligent observer of the human condition or warrior. Talk about binary While I agree to your point that "some" lean to one or the other... many others actively choose to simplify or not on a post by post basis. I find hope in this human condition.

This one you got your point across and you used no adhominem to do it.

Yet my argument is the same. An appeal to intellect, with a subtle poke. In this post I hid the poke behind smiles and hope But essentially I'm making the same exact same argument, that we assume we understand epic binary problems, only later to find out that the problem was not binary at all, but that the working of our brain has falsely convinced us that it was binary.

LOL. Okay, can you put that in plain English for us who are more simple minded?

Sure.. Sometimes we are wrong. Usually we are wrong for a good reason. That usual reason is that we either do not have all the facts, or in some cases, that our brain is not giving weight to some of the important facts.

This happens a lot. It is how our brains work.

Our brains filter out facts to make decisions binary.

We must understand this problem, and overcome it.

Think red light.. it's important for you to decide to go or not go, to go by the rules or break the rules. You will make a binary decision. But it's not simple or black and white. Sometimes you need more facts as to whether you will break the rules or not. Or maybe just "slow" down... or turn to leave the road to avoid a crash. Your autonomic system may push you into believing it's a binary decision. You may have been taught that it is a binary decision. That may make it easier for you to make a decision. But through learning you can train your brain to do a better job than just making binary decisions based on insufficient information.

Applying my red light example. You may think a statement is ad hom or not ad hom... but I'm telling you that in most cases you need more information, such as context, to make that decision.

Oh okay I understand. I had never used the term 'binary' for anything other than mathematics or chemistry, and I think binary code on a computer is code using only two numbers? But if we use binary to mean something with two parts, then your explanation makes sense and I appreciate that and I'm okay with the term used that way. Thanks.

But the point you made bringing it back to the thread topic--which I very much appreciate by the way--is this:

. . .Applying my red light example. You may think a statement is ad hom or not ad hom... but I'm telling you that in most cases you need more information, such as context, to make that decision."​

I do disagree that you need more information other than the statement made to determine if it is ad hominem however.

The post either refers to the person's post withinout commenting on the person's motive or intent or ideology or anything else personal about the person making the post, or it refers to or infers something personal about the person making the post. I can't think of any examples in which any additional information would be necessary to determine which of those two things is.

The only other dynamic is that the ad hominem remark refers to something personal about the person to weaken or destroy his/her argument.

That is why when your opponent says, "Of course you would say that. You're a Republican." it is ad hominem. It infers that only a Republican would say something like that and/or that your statement is influenced by the fact that you are a Republican and not because of any independent conclusion or thought on your part.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again off topic. Let's keep the train on the track. So in the interest of doing that, let's use your post as an example to discuss:

Whether or not your statement is true here, IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem.

How could you phrase it so you can make your point without it being ad hominem?

I suggest that you could say: "Naw, I just think you just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." This moves it out of ad hominem. The other person may still see it as insulting, but you own and take responsibility for your own opinion instead of assigning a personal characteristic to him. The difference is subtle but would be obvious to a debate judge.

And say "I think some don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Some folks get locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and they just don't understand why." This removes it from ad hominem because there is no inference of the mindset or character of the other person. Again the person may take it personally and accuse you of attacking him personally, but you can honestly say that the statement did not reference him specifically and if he takes it personally that is up to him.

My statement did not make any such inference. By your own "rules" for what you say ad hom is in this post. Your post is an ad hom reply of my post. Nudge.

In my very humble opinion... Making suppositions with regard to meanings or inferences of others is discussion, not ad hom.

ad hominem - 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. (Websters)

My statement did not appeal to "feelings or prejudices". More particularly my first sentence appealed directly to intellect, specifically to an understanding of "the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." My second sentence also appealed to indirectly to intellect, that of a need to understand why ones brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions."

Additionally, with regard to whether my statement included an attack on my opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made, I invite you to explain how you went from my two sentences directly to your ad hom on me stating that my post was an ad hom

No, my comments about your post were about your post and not about you personally. So they are of course subject to challenge as anybody's post is, and you are certainly within your right to correct any error you can find in my comments, but I did not characterize YOU in any way shape or form. So whether or not my comments are correct, they were not ad hominem.

Your post did draw an assumption about the opponents state of mind or character and that is what made it ad hominem. I am using the broadened definition and explanation of ad hominem as provided in the OP. The shortened dictionary definitions are too incomplete, and too many only express one or two aspects of ad hominem to be all that useful in this discussion.

To avoid ad hominem we need to comment on or attack, if appropriate, the person's post and leave the person's motive or mindset or political leanings or other perceived prejudices and/or biases out of it.

You said "IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem." Thus you are stating for a fact that your opinion is that I made an ad hom attack in that post, which is an assumption about my my state of mind or character and that is what makes your assertion that my post was ad hom an ad hom. Your OP has broadened ad hom, with these new generalizations, to any statement whatsoever in disagreement with another view.

Your further statements here in this post, indicate to me that you believe one can hide a personal attack by broadening the attack to a general (nudge) group of people for which that person is a clearly a member. No. Attacking a group of people for which the person is clearly a member with an ad hom attack does not go around the fact that you are making an ad hom attack. It is just an attempt to go around the "personal" rule by making the incorrect assumption that personal means individual.

No. Judging a statement to be ad hominem--which doesn't have to be an 'attack' by the way--in no way reflects on your motive, your character, or your state of mind in making the statement. It addresses the statement directly.

It is no different than saying,

"Your statement is insulting."
"Your statement is incorrect."
"Your statement is thought provoking."
"Your statement is hilarious."
"Your statement is right on."

Or any variations of the above. None refer to you personally but refer strictly to your action or the comment that you posted.

Saying "That is stupid" is not at all the same thing as saying "You are stupid." See the difference?

Nonsense. Saying black people are stupid to a black person is the same as saying you are stupid. Saying your statements are insulting is the same as saying you are insulting. Saying the things you do, say, and believe are all stupid, is the same as saying you are stupid. You are proposing that moving an adjective from one person to an object produced by the person somehow disassociates the understood association between the person and the object.

Only if the person that produced that object says that the object itself does not "reflect" himself at all do you get to disassociate the object from the person.

But saying black people are stupid, not only to a black person but to anybody with a brain, IMO, is a wrong, reprehensible, indefensible, racist and/or insulting statement. It merits sharp rebuke. But it is not ad hominem. Just because something is insulting or indefensible doesn't make it ad hominem.

To be ad hominem it would have to be something like "You think black people are stupid" or "You are black and are therefore stupid" or "You couldn't possible get it because you are black." Ad hominem has to refer to a person's character or something else personal about a person as a means of weakening or attacking the person's argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

Non sequitur!

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Ironic!

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me. I can however project that you meant it as an insult. But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

Basically this points out my earlier post, wrt. contexts.

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me

You got that part right.

I can however project that you meant it as an insult.

You got that part wrong.

But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

And you got that wrong too.

In essence my use of the term ironic was in response to your last sentence;

"Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why"

That was an ad hom on your part and it was ironic because you were projecting your own shortcoming.

For the record I never take anything posted in this forum personally because I always consider the source. I am well aware that many posters use vulgarities, insults and ad homs because they cannot actually defend their positions. I consider those responses to be tacit admissions of failure on their part and yes, it amuses me which accounts for the ironic chuckle on my part.

Why is not being locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions a shortcoming? As to the "I can project" sentence you may not understand the difference between "can" and "do." Might want to look that up.

As for my statement, it was just a statement of the facts as I see them. Not ad hom at all.

IMO, probably most of those engaging in ad hominem believe they are just stating facts. And they don't see the ad hominem which, IMO, is one of the most difficult of the logical fallacies to recognize and understand, but is the one that interferes with civil discussion more than any of the others. I believe that to be true in message board discussions, and in our interpersonal relationships as well.

And for the record, how you look at it or whether you take it personally doesn't make it ad hominem or not ad hominem either.

As for "being locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions a shortcoming" being a statement of fact, in certain contexts I wouldn't quarrel with it. And stated as a statement of fact it is not at all ad hominem. But when we infer that our opponent is "locked into. . . ." in order to weaken his argument, then it becomes ad hominem.

Again:
-- personal insults can be but are not necessarily ad hominem.

-- ad hominem can be, but does not have to be, personally insulting. It usually is and most likely is usually intended to be.

--ad hominem is turning the focus of your argument onto your opponent--to call into question his/her character or state of mind or intentions or motives or history or situation, etc. in a personal way, either directly or via association--in order to weaken or detract from or dismiss the argument your opponent made. It can apply to individuals or groups.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again off topic. Let's keep the train on the track. So in the interest of doing that, let's use your post as an example to discuss:

Whether or not your statement is true here, IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem.

How could you phrase it so you can make your point without it being ad hominem?

I suggest that you could say: "Naw, I just think you just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." This moves it out of ad hominem. The other person may still see it as insulting, but you own and take responsibility for your own opinion instead of assigning a personal characteristic to him. The difference is subtle but would be obvious to a debate judge.

And say "I think some don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Some folks get locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and they just don't understand why." This removes it from ad hominem because there is no inference of the mindset or character of the other person. Again the person may take it personally and accuse you of attacking him personally, but you can honestly say that the statement did not reference him specifically and if he takes it personally that is up to him.

My statement did not make any such inference. By your own "rules" for what you say ad hom is in this post. Your post is an ad hom reply of my post. Nudge.

In my very humble opinion... Making suppositions with regard to meanings or inferences of others is discussion, not ad hom.

ad hominem - 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. (Websters)

My statement did not appeal to "feelings or prejudices". More particularly my first sentence appealed directly to intellect, specifically to an understanding of "the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views." My second sentence also appealed to indirectly to intellect, that of a need to understand why ones brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions."

Additionally, with regard to whether my statement included an attack on my opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made, I invite you to explain how you went from my two sentences directly to your ad hom on me stating that my post was an ad hom

No, my comments about your post were about your post and not about you personally. So they are of course subject to challenge as anybody's post is, and you are certainly within your right to correct any error you can find in my comments, but I did not characterize YOU in any way shape or form. So whether or not my comments are correct, they were not ad hominem.

Your post did draw an assumption about the opponents state of mind or character and that is what made it ad hominem. I am using the broadened definition and explanation of ad hominem as provided in the OP. The shortened dictionary definitions are too incomplete, and too many only express one or two aspects of ad hominem to be all that useful in this discussion.

To avoid ad hominem we need to comment on or attack, if appropriate, the person's post and leave the person's motive or mindset or political leanings or other perceived prejudices and/or biases out of it.

You said "IMO your post here is clearly ad hominem." Thus you are stating for a fact that your opinion is that I made an ad hom attack in that post, which is an assumption about my my state of mind or character and that is what makes your assertion that my post was ad hom an ad hom. Your OP has broadened ad hom, with these new generalizations, to any statement whatsoever in disagreement with another view.

Your further statements here in this post, indicate to me that you believe one can hide a personal attack by broadening the attack to a general (nudge) group of people for which that person is a clearly a member. No. Attacking a group of people for which the person is clearly a member with an ad hom attack does not go around the fact that you are making an ad hom attack. It is just an attempt to go around the "personal" rule by making the incorrect assumption that personal means individual.

No. Judging a statement to be ad hominem--which doesn't have to be an 'attack' by the way--in no way reflects on your motive, your character, or your state of mind in making the statement. It addresses the statement directly.

It is no different than saying,

"Your statement is insulting."
"Your statement is incorrect."
"Your statement is thought provoking."
"Your statement is hilarious."
"Your statement is right on."

Or any variations of the above. None refer to you personally but refer strictly to your action or the comment that you posted.

Saying "That is stupid" is not at all the same thing as saying "You are stupid." See the difference?

Nonsense. Saying black people are stupid to a black person is the same as saying you are stupid. Saying your statements are insulting is the same as saying you are insulting. Saying the things you do, say, and believe are all stupid, is the same as saying you are stupid. You are proposing that moving an adjective from one person to an object produced by the person somehow disassociates the understood association between the person and the object.

Only if the person that produced that object says that the object itself does not "reflect" himself at all do you get to disassociate the object from the person.

I didn't say it wasn't insulting. I was arguing why an insulting statement may or may not be ad hominem and what makes one insult ad hominem while another may not be.

The topic is ad hominem, remember?

 

[RKMBrown]

Intelligent observer of the human condition or warrior. Talk about binary While I agree to your point that "some" lean to one or the other... many others actively choose to simplify or not on a post by post basis. I find hope in this human condition.

This one you got your point across and you used no adhominem to do it.

Yet my argument is the same. An appeal to intellect, with a subtle poke. In this post I hid the poke behind smiles and hope But essentially I'm making the same exact same argument, that we assume we understand epic binary problems, only later to find out that the problem was not binary at all, but that the working of our brain has falsely convinced us that it was binary.

LOL. Okay, can you put that in plain English for us who are more simple minded?

Sure.. Sometimes we are wrong. Usually we are wrong for a good reason. That usual reason is that we either do not have all the facts, or in some cases, that our brain is not giving weight to some of the important facts.

This happens a lot. It is how our brains work.

Our brains filter out facts to make decisions binary.

We must understand this problem, and overcome it.

Think red light.. it's important for you to decide to go or not go, to go by the rules or break the rules. You will make a binary decision. But it's not simple or black and white. Sometimes you need more facts as to whether you will break the rules or not. Or maybe just "slow" down... or turn to leave the road to avoid a crash. Your autonomic system may push you into believing it's a binary decision. You may have been taught that it is a binary decision. That may make it easier for you to make a decision. But through learning you can train your brain to do a better job than just making binary decisions based on insufficient information.

Applying my red light example. You may think a statement is ad hom or not ad hom... but I'm telling you that in most cases you need more information, such as context, to make that decision.

Oh okay I understand. I had never used the term 'binary' for anything other than mathematics or chemistry, and I think binary code on a computer is code using only two numbers? But if we use binary to mean something with two parts, then your explanation makes sense and I appreciate that and I'm okay with the term used that way. Thanks.

But the point you made bringing it back to the thread topic--which I very much appreciate by the way--is this:

. . .Applying my red light example. You may think a statement is ad hom or not ad hom... but I'm telling you that in most cases you need more information, such as context, to make that decision."​

I do disagree that you need more information other than the statement made to determine if it is ad hominem however.

The post either refers to the person's post withinout commenting on the person's motive or intent or ideology or anything else personal about the person making the post, or it refers to or infers something personal about the person making the post. I can't think of any examples in which any additional information would be necessary to determine which of those two things is.

The only other dynamic is that the ad hominem remark refers to something personal about the person to weaken or destroy his/her argument.

That is why when your opponent says, "Of course you would say that. You're a Republican." it is ad hominem. It infers that only a Republican would say something like that and/or that your statement is influenced by the fact that you are a Republican and not because of any independent conclusion or thought on your part.

Binary code on a computer is an encoding of data that uses only two states, on or off. The values of on or off are sometimes represented as 0 or 1. When the data is a number used by the masses the number is usually a number represented using base ten, aka the decimal system. When the number is represented in binary code the number is stored in base two, aka binary numbers. The number 3 in decimal is 11 in binary. In this example, the first number in sequence of binary numbers represents the number 2 in decimal, and the second number represents the number 1. 2 plus 1 = 3.

That said... the problem with words, is that these words have many, many different definitions. The only way you can truely know what definitions are being used is to share that information with the writer.

The true tower of babble is everyone talking the same language, but using completely different definitions of words and context and not truly understanding what each other is saying, even though we may "think" we do understand.

Your definition of ad hom, broadens the term, changes it's meaning and thus makes the thread of conversation less meaningful while also increasing the requirement of context to understand whether ad hom applies to any particular sentence or phrase uttered.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Ironic!

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me. I can however project that you meant it as an insult. But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

Basically this points out my earlier post, wrt. contexts.

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me

You got that part right.

I can however project that you meant it as an insult.

You got that part wrong.

But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

And you got that wrong too.

In essence my use of the term ironic was in response to your last sentence;

"Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why"

That was an ad hom on your part and it was ironic because you were projecting your own shortcoming.

For the record I never take anything posted in this forum personally because I always consider the source. I am well aware that many posters use vulgarities, insults and ad homs because they cannot actually defend their positions. I consider those responses to be tacit admissions of failure on their part and yes, it amuses me which accounts for the ironic chuckle on my part.

Why is not being locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions a shortcoming? As to the "I can project" sentence you may not understand the difference between "can" and "do." Might want to look that up.

As for my statement, it was just a statement of the facts as I see them. Not ad hom at all.

IMO, probably most of those engaging in ad hominem believe they are just stating facts. And they don't see the ad hominem which, IMO, is one of the most difficult of the logical fallacies to recognize and understand, but is the one that interferes with civil discussion more than any of the others. I believe that to be true in message board discussions, and in our interpersonal relationships as well.

And for the record, how you look at it or whether you take it personally doesn't make it ad hominem or not ad hominem either.

As for "being locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions a shortcoming" being a statement of fact, in certain contexts I wouldn't quarrel with it. And stated as a statement of fact it is not at all ad hominem. But when we infer that our opponent is "locked into. . . ." in order to weaken his argument, then it becomes ad hominem.

Again:
-- personal insults can be but are not necessarily ad hominem.

-- ad hominem can be, but does not have to be, personally insulting. It usually is and most likely is usually intended to be.

--ad hominem is turning the focus of your argument onto your opponent--to call into question his/her character or state of mind or intentions or motives or history or situation, etc. in a personal way, either directly or via association--in order to weaken or detract from or dismiss the argument your opponent made. It can apply to individuals or groups.

My use of "locked into" was giving the benefit of doubt that his filtering of other variables was not on purpose. Without the term "locked" the implication is that the person has decided nothing else matters but the left vs. right false meme for every personal/political issue. Your definition of locked appears to include "insult" my definition of locked is a state being exhibited by your statement, by not acknowledging that more variables are at play than left vs. right.

When a person makes an incorrect emotional argument based on a personal bias that is false, pointing out that falsehood is not an ad hom attack on that person.

FYI saying democrats are generally really good people, is not an ad hom attack. The insult is a necessary part of an ad hom attck. But you could say it's ad hom, if you are talking about ad hom approval statements.

 

[Foxfyre]

This one you got your point across and you used no adhominem to do it.

Yet my argument is the same. An appeal to intellect, with a subtle poke. In this post I hid the poke behind smiles and hope But essentially I'm making the same exact same argument, that we assume we understand epic binary problems, only later to find out that the problem was not binary at all, but that the working of our brain has falsely convinced us that it was binary.

LOL. Okay, can you put that in plain English for us who are more simple minded?

Sure.. Sometimes we are wrong. Usually we are wrong for a good reason. That usual reason is that we either do not have all the facts, or in some cases, that our brain is not giving weight to some of the important facts.

This happens a lot. It is how our brains work.

Our brains filter out facts to make decisions binary.

We must understand this problem, and overcome it.

Think red light.. it's important for you to decide to go or not go, to go by the rules or break the rules. You will make a binary decision. But it's not simple or black and white. Sometimes you need more facts as to whether you will break the rules or not. Or maybe just "slow" down... or turn to leave the road to avoid a crash. Your autonomic system may push you into believing it's a binary decision. You may have been taught that it is a binary decision. That may make it easier for you to make a decision. But through learning you can train your brain to do a better job than just making binary decisions based on insufficient information.

Applying my red light example. You may think a statement is ad hom or not ad hom... but I'm telling you that in most cases you need more information, such as context, to make that decision.

Oh okay I understand. I had never used the term 'binary' for anything other than mathematics or chemistry, and I think binary code on a computer is code using only two numbers? But if we use binary to mean something with two parts, then your explanation makes sense and I appreciate that and I'm okay with the term used that way. Thanks.

But the point you made bringing it back to the thread topic--which I very much appreciate by the way--is this:

. . .Applying my red light example. You may think a statement is ad hom or not ad hom... but I'm telling you that in most cases you need more information, such as context, to make that decision."​

I do disagree that you need more information other than the statement made to determine if it is ad hominem however.

The post either refers to the person's post withinout commenting on the person's motive or intent or ideology or anything else personal about the person making the post, or it refers to or infers something personal about the person making the post. I can't think of any examples in which any additional information would be necessary to determine which of those two things is.

The only other dynamic is that the ad hominem remark refers to something personal about the person to weaken or destroy his/her argument.

That is why when your opponent says, "Of course you would say that. You're a Republican." it is ad hominem. It infers that only a Republican would say something like that and/or that your statement is influenced by the fact that you are a Republican and not because of any independent conclusion or thought on your part.

Binary code on a computer is an encoding of data that uses only two states, on or off. The values of on or off are sometimes represented as 0 or 1. When the data is a number used by the masses the number is usually a number represented using base ten, aka the decimal system. When the number is represented in binary code the number is stored in base two, aka binary numbers. The number 3 in decimal is 11 in binary. In this example, the first number in sequence of binary numbers represents the number 2 in decimal, and the second number represents the number 1. 2 plus 1 = 3.

That said... the problem with words, is that these words have many, many different definitions. The only way you can truely know what definitions are being used is to share that information with the writer.

The true tower of babble is everyone talking the same language, but using completely different definitions of words and context and not truly understanding what each other is saying, even though we may "think" we do understand.

Your definition of ad hom, broadens the term, changes it's meaning and thus makes the thread of conversation less meaningful while also increasing the requirement of context to understand whether ad hom applies to any particular sentence or phrase uttered.

Sorry you see it that way. My definition of ad hom is the same one formal debate circles have been using for many decades at least and it never occured to us that it made discussion of it less meaningful. But each to their own.