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

[Foxfyre]

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 ad hom.

But the necessity to define what the other person's intentions or thinking was is what makes it ad hominem. It is not necessary to do in order to address whatever statement the person made.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

link? If you prefer I can make a more formal review of your OP text, I was mostly addressing your subsequent statements in this regard, not the OP text itself.

 

[RKMBrown]

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 ad hom.

But the necessity to define what the other person's intentions or thinking was is what makes it ad hominem. It is not necessary to do in order to address whatever statement the person made.

Yes, it is. Before a formal understanding of any statement can be made, a good understanding of context of the statement, such as definitions of the words used, purpose of the statement, prior statements made, and even subsequent qualifying statements must be done before we can make a true judgement. Otherwise you are just making knee jerk decisions based on your personal beliefs of what you think that person meant by his statement.

 

[RKMBrown]

FYI you appear to be trying to define an ad hom debate tactic, vs an ad hom attack as applies to forum rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

link? If you prefer I can make a more formal review of your OP text, I was mostly addressing your subsequent statements in this regard, not the OP text itself.

Link to what? I have been utilizing the definition in the OP for the entire thread. The link is there. And the OP does set the topic of the discussion. Or is intended to.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

link? If you prefer I can make a more formal review of your OP text, I was mostly addressing your subsequent statements in this regard, not the OP text itself.

Link to what? I have been utilizing the definition in the OP for the entire thread. The link is there. And the OP does set the topic of the discussion. Or is intended to.

The link you provided supports my use of the term ad hom, not yours. The link you provided echos the statements I've made this morning and are in stark contrast to the bone of contention you and I are currently discussing.

 

[Foxfyre]

You got that part right.

You got that part wrong.

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 ad hom.

But the necessity to define what the other person's intentions or thinking was is what makes it ad hominem. It is not necessary to do in order to address whatever statement the person made.

Yes, it is. Before a formal understanding of any statement can be made, a good understanding of context of the statement, such as definitions of the words used, purpose of the statement, prior statements made, and even subsequent qualifying statements must be done before we can make a true judgement. Otherwise you are just making knee jerk decisions based on your personal beliefs of what you think that person meant by his statement.

Okay. I just don't see it that way. This was not intended to be a confrontational battle. It was intended to be a discussion about what ad hominem is and what it isn't,.

Here is the topic for the thread:

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED

Do you agree with the definition of ad hominem as presented in this OP? Do you agree that ad hominem is used to undermine the person instead of the argument he/she is making and/or to derail the discussion? Do you think most members understand the difference between ad hominem and personal insults?
​

It appears right under the rules I established for this thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

link? If you prefer I can make a more formal review of your OP text, I was mostly addressing your subsequent statements in this regard, not the OP text itself.

Link to what? I have been utilizing the definition in the OP for the entire thread. The link is there. And the OP does set the topic of the discussion. Or is intended to.

The link you provided supports my use of the term ad hom, not yours. The link you provided echos the statements I've made this morning and are in stark contrast to the bone of contention you and I are currently discussing.

I don't think so. You'll have to show how that is true for me to accept it.

 

[RKMBrown]

From your link...

The reasons given by the arguer may very well be true but he does not support his argument with reason and logic. He rather takes the disregarding approach. He does not say anything to prove that the premises it proposes are problematic, instead he goes on attacking the person who proposed them.

I suggest reading that 10 times... then ask yourself did RKM provide support for his argument regarding the topic with reasoning and logic.. or did RKM merely deflect from topic to "attack the person who proposed" his argument regarding the topic?

As for the OP numbered list, there is no context behind any of the statements, thus no one can say whether or not support for the arguments was provided with reason and logic. Rather we are making "binary" decisions as in my red light example.

 

[Foxfyre]

FYI you appear to be trying to define an ad hom debate tactic, vs an ad hom attack as applies to forum rules.

I am trying to define ad hominem - what it is and what it isn't. In my opinion, the defnition is the same whether used in formal debate, casual discussion, or arguing on a message board.

 

[RKMBrown]

FYI you appear to be trying to define an ad hom debate tactic, vs an ad hom attack as applies to forum rules.

I am trying to define ad hominem - what it is and what it isn't. In my opinion, the defnition is the same whether used in formal debate, casual discussion, or arguing on a message board.

The link you provided is not however. The link you provided is expressly talking about ad hom attacks as a debate tactic, not ad hom compliments as a diversionary tactic.

IOW let's not conflate the term deflection and diversion with ad hom. When most people call ad hom they are talking about an insult designed to deflect from a topic.

 

[Foxfyre]

From your link...

The reasons given by the arguer may very well be true but he does not support his argument with reason and logic. He rather takes the disregarding approach. He does not say anything to prove that the premises it proposes are problematic, instead he goes on attacking the person who proposed them.

I suggest reading that 10 times... then ask yourself did RKM provide support for his argument regarding the topic with reasoning and logic.. or did RKM merely deflect from topic to "attack the person who proposed" his argument regarding the topic?

I haven't quarreled with how you have expressed anything other than to point out the ad hominem and/or when you have wandered off topic in discussions with others.

And in order to discuss that paragraph we have to put it into its full context which includes the ad hominem statement to which it referred.

 

[Foxfyre]

FYI you appear to be trying to define an ad hom debate tactic, vs an ad hom attack as applies to forum rules.

I am trying to define ad hominem - what it is and what it isn't. In my opinion, the defnition is the same whether used in formal debate, casual discussion, or arguing on a message board.

The link you provided is not however. The link you provided is expressly talking about ad hom attacks as a debate tactic, not ad hom compliments as a diversionary tactic.

IOW let's not conflate the term deflection and diversion with ad hom.

The title of this forum is "Debate Politics". The definition I provided for ad hominem does discuss debate tactics but not only in the context of formal debate. And if you don't see their definition as including diversionary tactics, then I don't know what to tell you. It is perfectly obvious to me.

Now, how about discussing the thread topic itself instead of fretting over how I have dicussed it? That would be really appreciated.

 

[RKMBrown]

From your link...

The reasons given by the arguer may very well be true but he does not support his argument with reason and logic. He rather takes the disregarding approach. He does not say anything to prove that the premises it proposes are problematic, instead he goes on attacking the person who proposed them.

I suggest reading that 10 times... then ask yourself did RKM provide support for his argument regarding the topic with reasoning and logic.. or did RKM merely deflect from topic to "attack the person who proposed" his argument regarding the topic?

I haven't quarreled with how you have expressed anything other than to point out the ad hominem and/or when you have wandered off topic in discussions with others.

And in order to discuss that paragraph we have to put it into its full context which includes the ad hominem statement to which it referred.

Which clearly states "Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments."

Now define "undermine him." Which appears to be the active part of the definition.

 

[Foxfyre]

From your link...

The reasons given by the arguer may very well be true but he does not support his argument with reason and logic. He rather takes the disregarding approach. He does not say anything to prove that the premises it proposes are problematic, instead he goes on attacking the person who proposed them.

I suggest reading that 10 times... then ask yourself did RKM provide support for his argument regarding the topic with reasoning and logic.. or did RKM merely deflect from topic to "attack the person who proposed" his argument regarding the topic?

I haven't quarreled with how you have expressed anything other than to point out the ad hominem and/or when you have wandered off topic in discussions with others.

And in order to discuss that paragraph we have to put it into its full context which includes the ad hominem statement to which it referred.

Which clearly states "Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments."

Now define "undermine him." Which appears to be the active part of the definition.

It means to make the person the issue in a way that calls his argument into question or diverts from the argument itself. It is intended to dismiss or weaken or discredit the argument because of who or what the person is and/or his associations or history or motive or intent or reputation or whatever.

 

[RKMBrown]

FYI you appear to be trying to define an ad hom debate tactic, vs an ad hom attack as applies to forum rules.

I am trying to define ad hominem - what it is and what it isn't. In my opinion, the defnition is the same whether used in formal debate, casual discussion, or arguing on a message board.

The link you provided is not however. The link you provided is expressly talking about ad hom attacks as a debate tactic, not ad hom compliments as a diversionary tactic.

IOW let's not conflate the term deflection and diversion with ad hom.

The title of this forum is "Debate Politics". The definition I provided for ad hominem does discuss debate tactics but not only in the context of formal debate. And if you don't see their definition as including diversionary tactics, then I don't know what to tell you. It is perfectly obvious to me.

Now, how about discussing the thread topic itself instead of fretting over how I have dicussed it? That would be really appreciated.

My point regarding diversionary tactics vs ad hom tactics is to point out to you that ALL diversionary tactics are not ad hom. Not sure why you switched that around as me stating that ad hom is not a diversionary tactic.

Again this is the type of incorrect assumption that people start making when they get upset over a topic. Clearly some people don't like the idea of not being the only smart person in a room.

Clearly some people don't like the idea of being told they are wrong. If you like I can just pat you on the back and agree with everything you say, even though I believe you are insulting me by stating that my statement is an ad hom attack. I know in my heart that I did not, in that case, make an ad hom attack. Rather the accuser, you in this case, is merely casting an aspersion on my character that is not supported by the words that I used nor the context in which they were provided.

 

[RKMBrown]

From your link...

The reasons given by the arguer may very well be true but he does not support his argument with reason and logic. He rather takes the disregarding approach. He does not say anything to prove that the premises it proposes are problematic, instead he goes on attacking the person who proposed them.

I suggest reading that 10 times... then ask yourself did RKM provide support for his argument regarding the topic with reasoning and logic.. or did RKM merely deflect from topic to "attack the person who proposed" his argument regarding the topic?

I haven't quarreled with how you have expressed anything other than to point out the ad hominem and/or when you have wandered off topic in discussions with others.

And in order to discuss that paragraph we have to put it into its full context which includes the ad hominem statement to which it referred.

Which clearly states "Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments."

Now define "undermine him." Which appears to be the active part of the definition.

It means to make the person the issue in a way that calls his argument into question or diverts from the argument itself. It is intended to dismiss or weaken or discredit the argument because of who or what the person is and/or his associations or history or motive or intent or reputation or whatever.

From that view, it is impossible to discuss any analysis of why someone is wrong that is associated with their clear and obvious filtering of the facts of the case.

My statement was the equivalent of saying hey look you're wrong because you are not looking at all of the variables. You are saying that is an ad hom attack diverting from the topic. Uhmmm hello.... the variables of the topic most certainly are a part of the topic. Pointing out that a person is clearly ignoring facts is not an ad hom attack.

 

[Foxfyre]

FYI you appear to be trying to define an ad hom debate tactic, vs an ad hom attack as applies to forum rules.

I am trying to define ad hominem - what it is and what it isn't. In my opinion, the defnition is the same whether used in formal debate, casual discussion, or arguing on a message board.

The link you provided is not however. The link you provided is expressly talking about ad hom attacks as a debate tactic, not ad hom compliments as a diversionary tactic.

IOW let's not conflate the term deflection and diversion with ad hom.

The title of this forum is "Debate Politics". The definition I provided for ad hominem does discuss debate tactics but not only in the context of formal debate. And if you don't see their definition as including diversionary tactics, then I don't know what to tell you. It is perfectly obvious to me.

Now, how about discussing the thread topic itself instead of fretting over how I have dicussed it? That would be really appreciated.

My point regarding diversionary tactics vs ad hom tactics is to point out to you that ALL diversionary tactics are not ad hom. Not sure why you switched that around as me stating that ad hom is not a diversionary tactic.

Again this is the type of incorrect assumption that people start making when they get upset over a topic. Clearly some people don't like the idea of not being the only smart person in a room.

Clearly some people don't like the idea of being told they are wrong. If you like I can just pat you on the back and agree with everything you say, even though I believe you are insulting me by stating that my statement is an ad hom attack. I know in my heart that I did not, in that case, make an ad hom attack. Rather the accuser, you in this case, is merely casting an aspersion on my character that is not supported by the words that I used nor the context in which they were provided.

And now you have gone full blown ad hom.

I have at no time inferred anything about you personally. If you think pointing out that your statement is ad hominem is casting aspersions on your character, I can't do anything about that either. It isn't. And it doesn't. And I am sorry you see it that way. It is a statement of fact about your post. You are free to disagree with it and show how it isn't if you can, and that night have been constructive to add content to the discussion, but accusing me is not constructive.

Nor have I suggested I am incapable of being wrong. I certainly have not suggested I'm smarter than anybody else. I have only asserted my right to express my opinions on the topic as everybody else has a right to do and to challenge or comment on posts made by others as everybody else has a right to do.

And if you agree that all diversionary tactics are not ad hom then we are in agreement with that. I have been trying to point that out pretty much from the beginning.

But at this point, if you really insist on making the topic about me, my intentions, what I think, the way I express myself, I will suggest that is inappropriate to do. I am not the topic of this thread.

I will ask that everybody focus on the thread topic and discuss that please.

 

[Foxfyre]

From your link...

The reasons given by the arguer may very well be true but he does not support his argument with reason and logic. He rather takes the disregarding approach. He does not say anything to prove that the premises it proposes are problematic, instead he goes on attacking the person who proposed them.

I suggest reading that 10 times... then ask yourself did RKM provide support for his argument regarding the topic with reasoning and logic.. or did RKM merely deflect from topic to "attack the person who proposed" his argument regarding the topic?

I haven't quarreled with how you have expressed anything other than to point out the ad hominem and/or when you have wandered off topic in discussions with others.

And in order to discuss that paragraph we have to put it into its full context which includes the ad hominem statement to which it referred.

Which clearly states "Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments."

Now define "undermine him." Which appears to be the active part of the definition.

It means to make the person the issue in a way that calls his argument into question or diverts from the argument itself. It is intended to dismiss or weaken or discredit the argument because of who or what the person is and/or his associations or history or motive or intent or reputation or whatever.

From that view, it is impossible to discuss any analysis of why someone is wrong that is associated with their clear and obvious filtering of the facts of the case.

My statement was the equivalent of saying hey look you're wrong because you are not looking at all of the variables. You are saying that is an ad hom attack diverting from the topic. Uhmmm hello.... the variables of the topic most certainly are a part of the topic. Pointing out that a person is clearly ignoring facts is not an ad hom attack.

Saying that a person is ignoring anything IS an ad hom characterization. Saying 'you are wrong because there are other variables' is not the same as saying 'you are ignoring the variables.' The ignoring characterization are mild ad hom and would probably be let slide on a message board--they would not have escaped point deduction in formal debate.

The safest way is to say "You are wrong because your statement does not include such variables as. . . . "

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Except that you cannot back up your "statement of fact" with a single actual fact.

Since you can't that means that you have no facts and therefore you are wrong and did in fact post an ad hom.

You also failed to comprehend your shortcoming but that was only to be expected given your shortcoming. And yes, that is a statement of fact based upon your own posted words and therefore not an ad hom.