Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Ad hominem is a fallacy since it avoids the argument entirely. If it discredits an argument, it can only do so indirectly, through discrediting the person advocating it.
I'm guessing we're having a semantic mixup here?

Yes, due to the fact that you are ignoring the words before what you bolded. The intent of an ad hominem NEEDS to be the refutation of the opposing argument, or it's not an ad hominem. The fact that attacking a person is not a valid refutation is why it's a fallacy, but the intent needs to be to discredit the argument.

An ad hominem is an attempt to discredit an argument by attacking the person. This is why it's a fallacy!

You specifically said that my intent was only to attack the person and not the argument - thus, it is a personal attack, but it is not a logical fallacy, simply a cheap shot.

None of which changes the fact that it was intended as an appeal. And hell, appeals can be fallacies, so if you want to point out one of those that applies, feel free. But if you're going to be accusing me of stuff, make it the right stuff.

[Wrex]

Well said Truean. Couldn't have put it better myself.

[GlyphGryph]

Blah. I suppose you could argue the tu quoque form, but even that would be a stretch. My optimal situation would be for him to accept the premise that he is someone who values these things, and thus strengthen the rest of my argument.

[kaijyuu]

I have to get back to work but posting to say I'll be back with some questions later. You've convinced me that I'm missing something here, so I'll ask to be educated on some details later.

[palsch]

I'm guessing we're having a semantic mixup here?

No, I think you are just unclear about what an ad hom is. Lots of people are.

Ad hom is solely when you attack or insult the person making the argument to discredit their point. Unless it is actually intended as or in the place of an argument then it isn't actually an ad hom attack.

A few quick examples demonstrate this best;

A: I think X.
B: We all know A is a glue sniffing conservative toff. Therefore Not X.

Here B is committing an ad hom, insulting A as though that were an argument against A's actual point. This is the clearest form of the fallacy possible.

A: I think X.
B: Well, for reason y, Y is true, not X. But I'd expect such lies from a Tory bastard like yourself.

This is a slightly different form of ad hom, where the attack on the person is closer to an attempt to poison the well than anything. While they do attack the argument with reasoning (possibly even valid reasoning) they are trying to reinforce this with the insult while also making it easier to dismiss anything they say in the future out of hand. You see this one a lot where gradually the reasoned arguments fade away and you revert to the first form over time.

It's also popular during dog piles on people who are voicing an unpopular or fringe belief in a hostile environment, where people are less interested in making valid arguments than with point scoring with the other people who agree with them. You commonly see that sort of tagged on dismissive line being the only part of such posts being quoted by others who agree with them, who probably didn't even bother reading the rest and were happy with just the idea that such an argument was made. But that's internet sociology, not logical fallacies, so ignore this paragraph.

A: I think X.
B: Well, for reason y, Y is true, not X. So fuck you, you were wrong.

Here B is not committing an ad hom, despite his insulting A. The insult is independent of the argument and not part of it. It is just an insult (and not a dismissive or personal one) and so not a fallacy.

A: I think X.
B: Well, for reason y, Y is true, not X. You idiot.

This is more borderline, but I'd push it towards being ad hom. While the insult is not part of the argument it is intended to be dismissive of the person themselves and so could be taken as trying to support their point (saying the person is inherently not smart enough for their arguments to be right). I'd honestly try to avoid this kind of thing, but for better reasons than it being fallacious reasoning. Insults referencing something inherent about a person are usually just bad.

[Descan]

I would call  gryph said more of an external version of "No True Scotsman" than ad hominem. Could be both, of course.

[kaijyuu]

Okie dokie, I have some time now for replies/questions. I'm pretty much on Input Mode, with the exception of one thing to Truean...

It might be slightly, but it isn't beyond the pale to call into question contradictions.

If something is "slightly" fallacious, then the argument is flawed. If the argument isn't flawed, then there are no fallacies. It's never justified to use a fallacy, though one might be correct in spite of the fallacy.

So yeah, no "yes but..." excuses when it comes to fallacies If the conclusion is still correct, you have to find a new way to reach it that actually makes sense.



There was also some stuff in your post about contradictory positions. That is a fine thing to talk about, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure that applies to GreatJustice. If you want to point out contradictions as an argument, make sure it's your opponent's contradictions you're arguing against, not some vague group they ostensibly belong to. Any arguments against "conservativism" as a philosophy do not necessarily apply to any particular conservative, and it's an association fallacy to think they do.


Okay, now Input Mode.

You specifically said that my intent was only to attack the person and not the argument - thus, it is a personal attack, but it is not a logical fallacy, simply a cheap shot.

That's what I read it as, yes: a cheap shot. Sort of like Descan said below you: a no true scotsman fallacy type thing (though I don't think it fits that perfectly).
I cannot see how something can be a cheap shot but not an ad hominem, unless it's an insult for giggles rather than an attempt to discredit. This would be where I guess I'm missing something?

Anyway, no hard feelings or anything; if an insult wasn't intended, then I see no reason to be insulted once that's cleared up (even though it'd be GreatJustice in this case rather than me).

None of which changes the fact that it was intended as an appeal.

This is where I'm mainly confused. What do you mean by "appeal"?

"Appeal" when used in logical debate, as I understand it, always is an appeal to something. When making an argument, what you "appeal" to is the support. An appeal to authority would be saying "this dude says X, and is a valid authority on the subject, therefore X is true." An appeal to popularity would be saying "X movie is the best since it's the most popular."

But that doesn't seem to fit the word as you used it. Based on context, I guess you're indirectly asking a question?

Blah. I suppose you could argue the tu quoque form, but even that would be a stretch.

Tu Quoque, as I understand it, is the fallacious appeal to hypocrisy. Responding to "X is bad" with "but you do X!" is tu quoque. Whether or not they do X is irrelevant.


@Palsch
Okay. I can see insults being thrown to get an audience on one's side, rather than a real attempt to discredit an opponent.

Side note: What kind of argument would you classify the part of Glyph Gryph's original post I quoted as?

[Leafsnail]

Pointing out a contradiction in a common worldview.

[Loud Whispers]

Article 15, Indian constitution:
The important stuff:

1. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them

4. Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

What it means:
HOW CAN SHE SLAP? HOW CAN SHE SLAP?!

So what does bay12 think? Good idea, true equality and all that, or a system that will eventually lead to abuse?

[Kedly]

Equality, but I don't really like that either person slapped the other xD

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't even know what "system" is being referenced here. Not allowing gender discrimination?

[Kedly]

Actually good point, the video distracts from the constitution. Gender equality isn't about who can hit who. It's about equality

[Loud Whispers]

Gender equality isn't about who can hit who.

The "how can she slap" was in reference of when a female TV presenter slapped some dude, and in response the dude slapped her back. He gets mobbed by the entire audience and beaten the crap up, whilst shouting "how can she slap?!"
So the video was specifically addressessing that double standard.

[Kedly]

Yeah that makes sense, I think laws don't quite stop that kind of mob activity though

[GreatJustice]

People who post things like that don't understand the concept of responsibility. You're getting "forced" to help people because it's your goddamn responsibility to help them, not because it's compassionate.

Responsibility? How?

Same way its your responsibility to pay taxes, same reason it's your responsibility to pay taxes for infrastructure development, same reason you can be called for the draft and the same reason you're supposed to vote.

We live in a society, a nation, and it is the responsibility of those who dwell within the nation to make it a good one, to do their part, so that through cooperation we can accomplish more than we would be able to as individuals. By living here, you agree to that. While the United States has always been big on liberty, and you can shirk many of those responsibilities without facing it's legal wrath, this does not make it any less of a responsibility for you to do your party.

It is through the action's of those who acted responsibly, acted in such a way to better this nation, that we've become as good as we are, and it is a lack of that responsibility that threatens us now.

I would think that a conservative would understand the notion of responsibility in respect to community and country. These are our neighbours, our extended family, our countrymen, and we do not leave them to suffer when we can do something to fix it.

And, like with the draft, if we can not manage success with voluntary adherence to that responsibility, we will use the force of law to insure those who attempt to shirk it also do their part.

These are all reasonable arguments against a Conservative using the Penn and Teller argument against taxes/welfare. However, I've never heard of conservatives attacking taxes from this standpoint, and you'd find that most libertarians would find conservatives to be contradictory in their views.

From a libertarian view (or a hardcore libertarian view, which leans in the direction of "anarchist"), no one has a responsibility to pay taxes,  be drafted (ESPECIALLY drafted, since that nears outright slavery) or vote. From that view, people have a responsibility to treat others with respect, to not mess with their things, and to deal with others in a mutually beneficial way. Therefore, the government is viewed as a bit of a parasite, since you have no choice in whether you "sign up" with it or not, it has no competition in a given area, and any services it offers are by their very nature monopolistic and uncompetitive. Take roads: the government provides roads, but the libertarian asks "Are these roads as efficient in cost and high quality as they could possibly be for my money's worth?" and comes to the conclusion that he can never know for sure because the government takes money that would otherwise go to something else (say, railways or a different kind of road) and crowds out competition because it doesn't need to satisfy consumer demand in the process. If the government does something stupid, it only becomes accountable via elections, which are so broad in issue that you might fix problem (A) but create a bunch of new problems in the process. It is also apt to engage in legalized plunder, where everyone tries to rob everyone else for their own benefit through the government, ultimately making everyone poorer except those with the best lobbyists (eg. farming or oil subsidies).