|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 18, 2014 18:52:47 GMT
Wikipedia actually has a decent definition for this term, so I'll share it here.
An ad hominem is NOT simply using an insult or ridicule during a debate. An ad hominem is saying, "You are [irrelevant personal fact] and THEREFORE you're wrong." The "therefore you're wrong" part is the whole point.
Some examples:
-"Your name is X and therefore you must be wrong."
-"You have no college degree and therefore you're wrong."
-"You are bald and therefore you're wrong."
-"You don't even lift and therefore you're wrong."
Those are some ad hominems.
On the contrary, it is NOT an ad hominem to make a specific argument against your opponent which demonstrates the irrationalities of their statement and THEN to tell them, "So you're an idiot/moron/retard/clown/liar/ect." These words are appropriate in a debate because they are DESCRIPTIVE. The term idiot, as Bill Gaede defines, is "someone lacking common sense". So if you explain how someone lacks common sense by making a nonsense argument, you are making a perfectly accurate description when you call them an idiot.
It also makes them feel bad for making a bad argument... and they should feel bad. If they can't argue coherently then they shouldn't even try until they learn a thing or two. That's the point of ridicule.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 18, 2014 19:55:28 GMT
One of the most common fallacies is the Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy!
|
|
|
|
Post by Emmanuel Caubergs on Feb 18, 2014 20:14:24 GMT
Huh, I guess you really do learn something every day
|
|
|
|
Post by The Joker on Feb 19, 2014 16:24:19 GMT
OMG! You are an idiot! Here is the problem though, since it is not actually in everyone's power to discern a good argument from a bad one, as has been proven on numerous discussion sites, how do you prove that you have the relevant qualification to call someone an idiot, when it is possible that you are the idiot for not understanding their argument?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 19, 2014 17:16:16 GMT
OMG! You are an idiot! Here is the problem though, since it is not actually in everyone's power to discern a good argument from a bad one, as has been proven on numerous discussion sites, how do you prove that you have the relevant qualification to call someone an idiot, when it is possible that you are the idiot for not understanding their argument?I bolded the problems with your argument. First of all, it is ENTIRELY possible for a person to discern a rational argument from an irrational one. Anybody with a brain and an understanding of rationality can perform this task. Either an argument is consistent or it ain't... either it's unambiguous or it ain't. Anybody with an intelligent brain can figure this out. Secondly, if you point out a contradiction or ambiguity in your opponent's argument with SPECIFIC reference and DIRECT quotes, then how is it "possible" that you just don't understand? The whole point of directly referencing your opponents words is to demonstrate objectively that you are able to listen and understand an argument and THEN you disagree with it and explain it's contradictions. Once you've explained exactly how an argument is in contradiction using specific references then you are free to call the person making that argument a complete idiot. Insults and namecalling alone are NOT ad-hominems, as I explained in the OP. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 19, 2014 17:18:17 GMT
Only immature, emotionally-driven people get distracted by ridicule during an argument. If they don't deserve the ridicule, they can explain WHY by clarifying their argument.
But so many people whine and complain about the ridicule and change the subject to focus on the insults rather than rationally arguing WHY they aren't idiots by clarifying their position. Only an idiot whines when they are called an idiot after being refuted.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 19, 2014 21:55:51 GMT
The Joker Guest said: "OMG! You are an idiot! Here is the problem though, since it is not actually in everyone's power to discern a good argument from a bad one, as has been proven on numerous discussion sites, how do you prove that you have the relevant qualification to call someone an idiot, when it is possible that you are the idiot for not understanding their argument?"
Whether someone is an idiot or not has no bearing on whether or not someone commits an ad hominem fallacy or an ad hominem fallacy fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy has two components to it. One avoids addressing the issue and instead calls someone a name, such as idiot. Someone commits an ad hominem fallacy fallacy if they claim ad hominem fallacy but the first condition has been met, i.e. the issue has been addressed (then a name has been called).
One would have to be a idiot not to understand this.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 19, 2014 22:03:16 GMT
Mike explained the fallacy and then took it a bit further justifying why he might call someone an idiot. Guest Joker does not commit an ad hominem fallacy even though he made an irrelevant argument it was not about Mike. Whether a good, rational, convincing or other type of argument should have no bearing on the status of ad hominem fallacy or ad hominem fallacy fallacy, but making an irrelevant argument does make the person look like an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Joker on Feb 20, 2014 14:01:30 GMT
I guess I am going to have to show you. You are an unbeliever, my son  Not tonight, but I will come back to argue your main belief, soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 20, 2014 17:12:12 GMT
Why don't you make an account Joker? Stick around and get comfy.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Joker on Feb 21, 2014 17:10:34 GMT
No thanks. I don't think I will. It would be an exercise in futility. You will ban me soon, you will see. And you will ban me because you don't agree with my arguments, but cannot refute them. You will be calling me an idiot very soon, and exactly for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 21, 2014 20:31:27 GMT
bah who cares if you get called an idiot. Its like taking a punch. Its fun. We need to learn how to play a bit rough again, at least every once in a while.
The whole world has gone effeminate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 22, 2014 15:13:07 GMT
No thanks. I don't think I will. It would be an exercise in futility. You will ban me soon, you will see. And you will ban me because you don't agree with my arguments, but cannot refute them. You will be calling me an idiot very soon, and exactly for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Soon. Holy shit Joker did you read that in your tea leafs or did your psychic tell you this? Nobody gets banned in this forum unless they are spamming. Don't be a pussy. Present your arguments if you think I can't refute them. |
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 22, 2014 21:49:14 GMT
"you will ban me because you don't agree with my arguments, but cannot refute them."
Promises, promises. I'm always hearing how someone will have an argument I can't refute. Of course, when their arguments are refuted some of these dullard think their arguments have prevailed.
Ha! I already DID call you an idiot and it went WHOOOSH! right over your head! Also, your argument was already refuted. 2x. Once by Mike and once by me.
What a fucking idiot! This is a step up from idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Joker on Feb 23, 2014 1:17:36 GMT
Aaaah, Mike. Spamming is it? Can you tell me what constitutes spamming? Just so I can be sure. I have been accused of 'spamming' by Fatfist just before he threw me off his forum too. In his case 'spamming' meant 'not changing my argument after his feeble attempt at refuting it'.
As for you, Monkeymind. We have danced before, and I will admit I respect you as a comprehensive human specimen, but you have shit for brains, sir. I am afraid anyone that falls for Bill Gaedes' con, automatically qualifies.
Mike, I have looked on your site for something to get my teeth into, but all I could find was a pile of shit that Fatfist left, where he babbles on, incomprehensibly, about rationality and logic. Is there anything on here that would represent an argument from you? If there is, please point me to it.
|
|
Not tonight, but I will come back to argue your main belief, soon.
