Ad Hominem (spray version)

[E-rock]

Stupid Climber's board, what good it that thing.

The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

 

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

 

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

 

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

 

[j_b]

I am glad you FINALLY took the time to understand what ad-hominem means. You'll note that your post confirms what I was saying about people who systematically attack the person rather than make a counter argument even if it laced with insults that relate to the offending behavior.

[E-rock]

fuck you, crybaby

[j_b]

LOLZ truth hurts, doesn't it?

Edited May 20, 2011 by j_b

[E-rock]

It all hinges on your assumption that people are giving you shit because they can't/won't argue against your points in some sinister attempt to SILENCE you. Actually, we'd like to see you keep going.

[G-spotter]

get a room you two

8D

[j_b]

just to be clear the relevant PART of your post is this one:

 

"Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem"

 

The rest of your post is however largely dross.

[skykilo]

i heard you're all three prolific pederasts. end of discussion.

[j_b]

the father, the son and the holy spirit?

[ivan]

discoursing in latin is like wiping yer ass w/ silk?

[j_b]

so where is the problem?

[joblo7]

example:"" Armstrong spokesman Mark Fabiani responded with a statement that said: "Hamilton is actively seeking to make money by writing a book, and now he has completely changed the story he has always told before so he could get himself on '60 Minutes' and increase his chances with publishers."