Logical Fallacies

[Sky Dancer]

Allie is going to have to stop posting as she commits one of those almost every time she posts.

Ad Hominem.

Not ad hominem. Sorry. Ad hominem would be "people like Allie commit one of these almost every time they post".

The statement as it is exists is a direct and straightforward personal insult though, in a formal debate, there would have to be substantiation for it as well as support for stopping posting being an imperative.

Give some more examples of ad hominem.

 

[Ravi]

Sorry about the weird gibbering encrypted in my postings. Fucking keyboard.

No problem...most of us are used to your weird gibbering.

 

[Ravi]

You know, everybody should read these regularly, just so when you're being an ass, you'll know you are. I hate to see people being asses accidentally, it's like watching them pick their nose.

The University of Phoenix Master List of Logical Fallacies

1. Ad hominem or ATTACKING THE PERSON. Attacking the arguer rather than his/her argument. Example:

Low self-esteem: This is a hallmark of most people with a compulsive lying disorder. Deep-seated feelings of inferiority drive such a person to fabricate a persona that makes them feel more worthy.
Other negative personality traits: Compulsive lying is often a secondary impulse related to other personality disorders. Watch for narcissistic and/or manipulative behavior. Inappropriate emotions and impulsive reactions to situations can be another tip off that something is not quite right.
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): People suffering from ADHD also demonstrate impulsive behavior, and it's possible for this to escalate into uncontrollable lying if not kept in check.
Addictions: People with addictions to gambling, alcohol, drugs or other activities also are much more likely to lie compulsively.
Bipolar Disorder: Sufferers of a bipolar disorder seesaw through periods of depression and mania. Depression is usually accompanied by low self-esteem and feeling like life is dreadful. Mania is the complete opposite, and a person feels like life is grand and nothing can get in the way. Impulsive behavior is common during this period, and it becomes easier to tell a lie than face reality.
Inability to face reality: Even when confronted with the cold facts, a true compulsive liar will never admit the truth. Attempts to make the person do so will result in further lying and perhaps even emotional outbursts designed to deflect attention from the lying.
Symptoms of Compulsive Liars - LoveToKnow Recovery

Sky, thy name art LIAR.

Thanks Ravi--

We can all use a reminder of what ad hominem attacks are. Some campaigns of ad hominem end up falling into the category of verbal abuse.

Characteristics identifying verbal abuse are, but not limited to:

Always referring to the opinions of others as irrelevant and wrong.
Inconsideration of a person’s feelings.
Using verbal abusiveness jokingly.
Refusing to listen to others.
Using accusations and blame to manipulate and control others.
Being judgmental and critical of others.
Belittling the concerns of others.
Consistently berates a person’s confidence.
Threatens to do physical harm.
Name-calling.
Purposeful cancellations of appointments or agreements.
Making difficult or impossible demands on others.
Denial of perpetrating the abuse.
Causing fear in people through outbursts of rage.



Verbal Abuse

Holy shit, you just described dillo!

 

[AllieBaba]

Even if it were pertinent, which it isn't, it isn't verbal abuse if it isn't VERBAL. But don't let that stop the wave....

 

[Ravi]

it isn't verbal abuse if it isn't VERBAL.

LOL, fucking, LOL. That may be the Queen of all logical fallacies, Babble...my hat is off to you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks Ravi--

We can all use a reminder of what ad hominem attacks are. Some campaigns of ad hominem end up falling into the category of verbal abuse.

Characteristics identifying verbal abuse are, but not limited to:

Always referring to the opinions of others as irrelevant and wrong.
Inconsideration of a person’s feelings.
Using verbal abusiveness jokingly.
Refusing to listen to others.
Using accusations and blame to manipulate and control others.
Being judgmental and critical of others.
Belittling the concerns of others.
Consistently berates a person’s confidence.
Threatens to do physical harm.
Name-calling.
Purposeful cancellations of appointments or agreements.
Making difficult or impossible demands on others.
Denial of perpetrating the abuse.
Causing fear in people through outbursts of rage.



Verbal Abuse

Holy shit, you just described dillo!

LOL. Poor dillo. Some people are so literal that they don't think internet posting can be considered 'verbally' abusive.

Don't look now Sky, but THAT was ad hominem that you just posted. You asked for examples.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The sharks are circling .. I guess I'll swim elsewhere...

Oh look... a hammerhead....!!!!

 

[AllieBaba]

If you can find a definition for VERBAL abuse that involves the written word unsupported by anything spoken, I'll stop scoffing.

Until then.

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL. Poor dillo. Some people are so literal that they don't think internet posting can be considered 'verbally' abusive.

Don't look now Sky, but THAT was ad hominem that you just posted. You asked for examples.

How so?

Oh, I get it. It's to the person, not the post. What would have NOT been ad hominem would to be to state that internet posting is verbal abuse, even though it is not uttered verbally. The position that verbal abuse is not internet posting reflects a narrow or literal view of the term verbal abuse. Verbal abuse is the use of words to cause harm whether they are written or uttered.

Thanks Fox

What would NOT be ad hominem would be to say "Dillo says internet posting is verbal abuse." That would be a statement of fact, however erroneous it most likely is, but it is a statement that can be supported or not.

What makes it ad hominem is alluding to Dillo as being the same as 'some people who are so literal they don't think. . . . ." which is an inference that you cannot support and is therefore a logical fallacy. Also ad hominem is a presumption of what Dillo does or does not think.

 

[AllieBaba]

The poster's actual words of her posts?

WTF does that mean?

Oh, and in the spirit of compassion, I've found you some help, Sky:

Dr. Irene's Verbal Abuse (Site)!

I don't know if you're an angry person or the person who loves one, but I thought you could use some support.

 

[Foxfyre]

How so?

Oh, I get it. It's to the person, not the post. What would have NOT been ad hominem would to be to state that internet posting is verbal abuse, even though it is not uttered verbally. The position that verbal abuse is not internet posting reflects a narrow or literal view of the term verbal abuse. Verbal abuse is the use of words to cause harm whether they are written or uttered.

Thanks Fox

What would NOT be ad hominem would be to say "Dillo says internet posting is verbal abuse." That would be a statement of fact, however erroneous it most likely is, but it is a statement that can be supported or not.

What makes it ad hominem is alluding to Dillo as being the same as 'some people who are so literal they don't think. . . . ." which is an inference that you cannot support and is therefore a logical fallacy. Also ad hominem is a presumption of what Dillo does or does not think.

I see. It's a bit trickier than I thought. What about people who make accusations but don't support it with fact, such as the poster's ACTUAL words?

Would depend on the circumstances. Statements presented as fact that can be verified or not are usually not ad hominem. They may be wrong. They may be flat out lies. And they may be an intended personal insult. But that doesn't necessarily make them ad hominem.

What makes something ad hominem is based on assumption or inference, usually negative or derogatory but not always, that cannot be verified or falsified and usually that which is based on personal bias or prejudice or blanket assumptions.

Example:
"I find abortion morally reprehensible."

Non ad hominem response:
"I accept that as your point of view." or "I agree." or "I disagree."

Ad hominem response:
"Of course you would say that. You're a conservative." Or "You're a Christian." Or "You're a rightwinger." All would be logical fallacies.

 

[AllieBaba]

As is saying abstinence is not contraception because it's just a perverted sexual practice that is used by EEVVIIILLL Christians to avoid sex.

 

[Foxfyre]

As is saying abstinence is not contraception because it's just a perverted sexual practice that is used by EEVVIIILLL Christians to avoid sex.

Yes another good example.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol...
You said much more than that, Sky, you liar:

"Abstinence only is a form of pregnancy prevention for religious people who are only allowed to have sex to produce babies.

Contraception is for everyone else with a healthy sex life.

The anti-choice movement not only is ant-abortion, but they anti-contraception. They are abstinence only religious fanatics. "

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/159012-pro-life-or-anti-abortion-5.html

 

[Foxfyre]

As is saying abstinence is not contraception because it's just a perverted sexual practice that is used by EEVVIIILLL Christians to avoid sex.

Yes another good example.

It would be if I'd said anything close to that. What I did say was that abstinence is not contraception. I based that on a definition I'd read that didn't include abstinence as contraception. Some Christians consider abstinence the only acceptable form of contraception. Some believe sex is only for procreation. When the person inserts phrases like 'evil' that weren't included in the post they are responding to what kind of fallacy is that? Would it be considered a form of deceptive debate?

There is more than one definition of the word contraception.

What makes it ad hominem is not the statement itself. What would make it ad hominem is assuming that this person or that person holds a point of view BECAUSE they are a Christian. If they say that is why they hold the point of view, then they are fair game to be characterized in that manner. It cannot be an assumption on somebody's part, however. however,

 

[Ravi]

As is saying abstinence is not contraception because it's just a perverted sexual practice that is used by EEVVIIILLL Christians to avoid sex.

hahaha! Except no one ever said any such thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

As is saying abstinence is not contraception because it's just a perverted sexual practice that is used by EEVVIIILLL Christians to avoid sex.

hahaha! Except no one ever said any such thing.

Nevertheless it is a good example of an ad hominem statement.

 

[AllieBaba]

My paraphrase. Her actual idiocy was: "Abstinence only is a form of pregnancy prevention for religious people who are only allowed to have sex to produce babies.

Contraception is for everyone else with a healthy sex life.

The anti-choice movement not only is ant-abortion, but they anti-contraception. They are abstinence only religious fanatics."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/159012-pro-life-or-anti-abortion-5.html

And that is a prime example of ad hominem as well. And a couple of other fallacies.
But don't ask me what ant abortion is. I don't know.

 

[Foxfyre]

My paraphrase. Her actual idiocy was: "Abstinence only is a form of pregnancy prevention for religious people who are only allowed to have sex to produce babies.

Contraception is for everyone else with a healthy sex life.

The anti-choice movement not only is ant-abortion, but they anti-contraception. They are abstinence only religious fanatics."

And that is a prime example of ad hominem as well. And a couple of other fallacies.

Yup. If you have quoted accurately here, that is a great example of an argument that is pretty much all ad hominem.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's a direct quote.

Oh crap, I meant to link it, too...brb...