Ravi
Diamond Member
No, dear. Numbnuts is just a term of endearment. Not an attack on anyone. Certainly not a personal attack on leftists
Debate Now Okay, let's talk about ad hominem.
- Thread starter Foxfyre
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #82
I would like to return to this paragraph from Pogo's Post #60 because in further review I think I did not give it proper attention.
He said:
This is the one that prompted my question about 'why is it necessary. . .' to which you objected. Does not the bolded portion suggest that you are saying that the source of the adversary's position is a necessary bridge to a conclusion? If I am misinterpreting your intent with that, please point out what you did mean.
But again, what does the origin of my position have to do with whether a statement itself is accurate or inaccurate? Reasonable or unreasonable? Valid or invalid?
Another example--literary license taken here and not to be taken as a literal post:
X posts: "A balanced budget is the best thing we can do for the middle class."
Y posts: "Of course you would say that. You're a Republican."
Y's post is clearly ad hominem and makes the subject Republicanism and X is expressing Republican views rather than focusing on the validity of X's statement. Whether or not X is a Republican or whether Republicans endorse it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the statement itself is a valid statement.
He said:
Nope, can't agree. Any dissection and eventual understanding of an adversary's position with which one disagrees can legitimately involve an inspection of its derivation. After all any conclusion requires a bridge to get to it; questioning how those dots became connected is clearly valid analysis: "Do you believe that because ______?" That's simply a search for context, which in itself is innocuous. . . .
This is the one that prompted my question about 'why is it necessary. . .' to which you objected. Does not the bolded portion suggest that you are saying that the source of the adversary's position is a necessary bridge to a conclusion? If I am misinterpreting your intent with that, please point out what you did mean.
But again, what does the origin of my position have to do with whether a statement itself is accurate or inaccurate? Reasonable or unreasonable? Valid or invalid?
Another example--literary license taken here and not to be taken as a literal post:
X posts: "A balanced budget is the best thing we can do for the middle class."
Y posts: "Of course you would say that. You're a Republican."
Y's post is clearly ad hominem and makes the subject Republicanism and X is expressing Republican views rather than focusing on the validity of X's statement. Whether or not X is a Republican or whether Republicans endorse it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the statement itself is a valid statement.
- Thread starter
- #83
That would be an insulting statement intended to label and put down people who are misstating a law. It is referring to a specific action of the people being discussed and does not refer to their character or motives for doing it. Less than charitable. Yes. Unkind? Yes. Reflects poorly on the person making the statement who in a state of less frustration might choose not to make that statement. Yes. Ad hominem? No.
Ravi
Diamond Member
Not when true.
- Thread starter
- #86
No. That would be a personal insult. It would violate the rules for the thread and if intended to insult, whether directed at me or any other member, I would report it immediately.
- Thread starter
- #87
Yes. Even if it was true it would violate the rules of the thread and it would be reported.
Ravi
Diamond Member
Calling someone a spammer "involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments."
Telling someone they should leave if they don't like being bullied "involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments."
That is YOUR definition, as stated in the OP.
- Thread starter
- #90
Okay let's drag the train back onto the tracks here folks:
Here again is the thread topic:
Disclaimer: I added the 'why or why not' to the above topic and it does not appear in the OP but I wish I had included it.
Since my personal answers to the questions are 'yes', 'yes' and 'no' is why I offered this topic for discussion.
I think most people who read this thread objectively would agree that there have already been posts that focus on the person who made the post instead of focusing on the post itself. Some appear to be personal insults carefully worded to avoid moderator action. Some posts have either been deleted by moderator action or deleted by the member(s) making those posts. And I could have missed one or two, but I believe all the members making such posts so far have not agreed to the definition of ad hominem offered in the OP. Nor has anyone seriously attempted to rebut that definition as posted and linked but some have objected to it without being specific as to how their complaint is valid.
I think most people who read this thread objectively would see posts that disrupt the discussion and add nothing to it.
And I am pretty sure a lot of people still don't understand what ad hominem actually is and/or how it differs from personal insult.
Here again is the thread topic:
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? Why or why not?
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? Why or why not?
Disclaimer: I added the 'why or why not' to the above topic and it does not appear in the OP but I wish I had included it.
Since my personal answers to the questions are 'yes', 'yes' and 'no' is why I offered this topic for discussion.
I think most people who read this thread objectively would agree that there have already been posts that focus on the person who made the post instead of focusing on the post itself. Some appear to be personal insults carefully worded to avoid moderator action. Some posts have either been deleted by moderator action or deleted by the member(s) making those posts. And I could have missed one or two, but I believe all the members making such posts so far have not agreed to the definition of ad hominem offered in the OP. Nor has anyone seriously attempted to rebut that definition as posted and linked but some have objected to it without being specific as to how their complaint is valid.
I think most people who read this thread objectively would see posts that disrupt the discussion and add nothing to it.
And I am pretty sure a lot of people still don't understand what ad hominem actually is and/or how it differs from personal insult.
- Thread starter
- #91
There is a difference between calling somebody a spammer and commenting on or objecting to spamming of a thread. Calling somebody a spammer is a personal insult. Objecting to spamming of a thread is neither personal insult or ad hominem.
Telling somebody they should leave if they don't like being bullied may be insensitive and/or rude, but it is in no way ad hominem.
So how is either 'my definition' of ad hominem as stated in the OP?
Objecting to, criticizing, or refuting a person's statement is NOT ad hominem. Making, even by implication, a judgment about the motive, character, personality, intent, background, etc. of the person making the statement IS ad hominem.
Last edited:
Ravi
Diamond Member
That was not convincing in the least.
- Thread starter
- #93
Just read and understand the OP and the rules for discussion and limit your comments to the thread topic as much as possible and you'll do just fine, dear.
- Thread starter
- #94
Sorry. I didn't really expect it to be convincing for everybody. But you didn't refute it did you? Why don't you try to do that?
Ravi
Diamond Member
I refuted your claim that my examples of ad homs were not ad homs. By your own definition, they are ad homs. It was your turn to refute but you were not able to put forth a convincing rebuttal.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #96
I answered clearly: it is traditional and accepted.
You have to show why your altered definition is better. This is your OP, so the burden of proof is yours.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #97
Thank you for finally giving clear evidence you want a thread under your control and direction where you cannot be contradicted. Thank you.
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,392
- 1,170
when you tell others what they don't understand, is that an ad hom or merely an insult..? FTR
- Thread starter
- #99
So, returning to the thread topic and selecting another of Pogo's earlier comments that I think I didn't give adequate attention to:
From his Post #53:
When I teach ad hominem, 'poisoning the well' is absolutely one form of ad hominem. It is difficult to find examples of it that are not ad hominem. It is an intentional effort to call a person's character or weaknesses or biases or motives or whatever into question as the means of discrediting his/her statement. Mischaracterizing or drawing unfounded assumptions about a person's statement is another way to do that.
And I can't see how you can say commenting on a persons motives is not a statement on a person's character. What drives anybody's motives other than their character?
And as for every argument dynamic having a motive, that may be true. However, the motive has absolutely nothing to do with whether the argument itself is or is not a valid argument. So to divert from the argument to the motive of the person making the argument is ad hominem.
From his Post #53:
. . . .Every argument dynamic has some motive driving it. Without a motive it doesn't exist.
Commenting on what an adversary's motive might be could be a case of Poisoning the Well if negative, or simple analysis if positive. Neither makes a statement on the adversary's character. . . .
Commenting on what an adversary's motive might be could be a case of Poisoning the Well if negative, or simple analysis if positive. Neither makes a statement on the adversary's character. . . .
When I teach ad hominem, 'poisoning the well' is absolutely one form of ad hominem. It is difficult to find examples of it that are not ad hominem. It is an intentional effort to call a person's character or weaknesses or biases or motives or whatever into question as the means of discrediting his/her statement. Mischaracterizing or drawing unfounded assumptions about a person's statement is another way to do that.
And I can't see how you can say commenting on a persons motives is not a statement on a person's character. What drives anybody's motives other than their character?
And as for every argument dynamic having a motive, that may be true. However, the motive has absolutely nothing to do with whether the argument itself is or is not a valid argument. So to divert from the argument to the motive of the person making the argument is ad hominem.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #100
It could just be fact based on their erroneous statement but in some cases, depending on how it is used, it could be ad hominem. However, instructing or asking somebody to understand is not ad hominem.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
dave portnoy and bar stool sports sets record for F bombs in a single sentence- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 0
-
-
Zone1 Evangelicals Furious After Trump Shares Sacrilegious Photo Of Himself As Bibleman- Started by Votto
- Replies: 2
-
Trump To Expand Alcatraz By Putting Up Fence Around San Francisco
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 4
