"You misunderstand, adding an insult to an argument does not necessarily make it wrong But it is an unnecessary distraction thus it is considered fallacious"
By definition a fallacious argument is a wrong one.
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy. In order to become a fallacy, the insult would need to be given as a reason for believing some conclusion. An example would be, "X is idiotically ignorant [of politics], so why should we listen to him now?"
"Abusive ad hominem, usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions"
@RevDevilin Ok whatever. Something is off with you and I can't quite place it yet. You are a rather strange person, that's nether good nor bad but its just that you are baffling to me. I don't know why you cannot accept a simple truth. BTW this definition you posted doesn't disagree with what I said, in fact it supports it. I think you are suffering from incompetence on this issue. Believe what you want, you are only spreading disinformation.
@thesparitan I believe I am trying to clarify a common misconception, the wki shows the most common misuse, and the underlying theory behind it, but sometimes this is like trying to explain that 0.999r = 1 some people just don't get it
@RevDevilin You are actually enhancing a common misconception. No credible source uses your definition and its also not logically sound ether as I have explained before. You are not going to correct it because you don't see how it is wrong so why continue this debate. We are at an impasse, no further progress can be made. Its annoying that I run into this misconception all the time.
I had someone try and tell me that calling someone insane is an ad hominem. I tried to explain to them that it is only an ad hominem if I say because they are insane their argument is wrong. Guy was to stupid to understand that.
@thesparitan Nope that "Guy" was right, if you address the person rather than the argument, that is an ad hominem, ie ad hominem "to the man" that's what it means
@RevDevilin Yes and no. Insults are not Ad Hominem fallacies. Its only when you attack someones character to attack the argument. Here are two examples
A: "You have a monkey on your face and no one with a monkey on there face is ever right, therefore you must be wrong."
B: "The sky is blue and you are an idiot for saying that it is green"
Your's is a common misconception, but it is a misconception
In a logical argument, you address only the argument
A ad hominem, addresses the man rather than the argument thus it distracts from the argument at hand so it is fallacious in its nature, insults and even negative fact's concerning the individual presenting the argument are therefore fallacious
@RevDevilin I know what ad hominem means in translation you dont need to post that. You do not understand what an ad hominem is. Here I give you a video watch
?v=7GzXVqwYHVE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
This is from a philosophy professor at Iowa state, I think its Iowa state anyways its a demonstration of the fallacy. If you think insults are a fallacy then you will need to seriously read up on what a fallacy actually is.
@RevDevilin Insults are not fallacious and if you are going to try use the wikipedia definition as proof then you have to use the other part that I posted which shows you are completely wrong. It is impossible for an insult to be an ad hominem because if that were true then even the most sound deductive arguments would be untrue if someone added an insult. What about calling someone stupid when they are in fact stupid? What if I just take offense at any word?
@RevDevilin The point is you are not going to accept a clear definition and that seems to be that. I don't know where else this conversation can go, but I will personally choose the standard definition that is in every textbook, school and dictionary then some guy. Thanks for the help but I will stick with my logically sound definition, if you please.
@RevDevilin Actually I think there is a possibility for a misunderstanding here. Just to clarify and make sure of something. Do you believe that this sentence "you are a moron" is an ad hominem fallacy?
"You misunderstand, adding an insult to an argument does not necessarily make it wrong But it is an unnecessary distraction thus it is considered fallacious"
By definition a fallacious argument is a wrong one.
thesparitan 6 months ago
this is from wikipedia's definition
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy. In order to become a fallacy, the insult would need to be given as a reason for believing some conclusion. An example would be, "X is idiotically ignorant [of politics], so why should we listen to him now?"
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan wki
"Abusive ad hominem, usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions"
RevDevilin 6 months ago
@RevDevilin Ok whatever. Something is off with you and I can't quite place it yet. You are a rather strange person, that's nether good nor bad but its just that you are baffling to me. I don't know why you cannot accept a simple truth. BTW this definition you posted doesn't disagree with what I said, in fact it supports it. I think you are suffering from incompetence on this issue. Believe what you want, you are only spreading disinformation.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan I believe I am trying to clarify a common misconception, the wki shows the most common misuse, and the underlying theory behind it, but sometimes this is like trying to explain that 0.999r = 1 some people just don't get it
RevDevilin 6 months ago
@RevDevilin You are actually enhancing a common misconception. No credible source uses your definition and its also not logically sound ether as I have explained before. You are not going to correct it because you don't see how it is wrong so why continue this debate. We are at an impasse, no further progress can be made. Its annoying that I run into this misconception all the time.
thesparitan 6 months ago
I had someone try and tell me that calling someone insane is an ad hominem. I tried to explain to them that it is only an ad hominem if I say because they are insane their argument is wrong. Guy was to stupid to understand that.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Nope that "Guy" was right, if you address the person rather than the argument, that is an ad hominem, ie ad hominem "to the man" that's what it means
RevDevilin 6 months ago
@RevDevilin Yes and no. Insults are not Ad Hominem fallacies. Its only when you attack someones character to attack the argument. Here are two examples
A: "You have a monkey on your face and no one with a monkey on there face is ever right, therefore you must be wrong."
B: "The sky is blue and you are an idiot for saying that it is green"
Which one is an ad hominem?
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan Always and both
watch?v=cj0CIENjGmk
Your's is a common misconception, but it is a misconception
In a logical argument, you address only the argument
A ad hominem, addresses the man rather than the argument thus it distracts from the argument at hand so it is fallacious in its nature, insults and even negative fact's concerning the individual presenting the argument are therefore fallacious
Ad Hominem "to the man"
RevDevilin 6 months ago
@RevDevilin I know what ad hominem means in translation you dont need to post that. You do not understand what an ad hominem is. Here I give you a video watch
?v=7GzXVqwYHVE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
This is from a philosophy professor at Iowa state, I think its Iowa state anyways its a demonstration of the fallacy. If you think insults are a fallacy then you will need to seriously read up on what a fallacy actually is.
Insults are not ad hominems.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan Nice argument from authority :D
Good vid
Although he concludes, that his position on Ad Hominem's occasionally being justified, is not without controversy
7.00 "and why in general Ad Hominem's are fallacies"
Although personally in the wider field of argumentation theory I'd say always
But still this proves what exactly ?
Except you are wrong about insults not being fallacious ?
And even if you accept his conclusions you are still "in general" wrong :D
RevDevilin 6 months ago
@RevDevilin Insults are not fallacious and if you are going to try use the wikipedia definition as proof then you have to use the other part that I posted which shows you are completely wrong. It is impossible for an insult to be an ad hominem because if that were true then even the most sound deductive arguments would be untrue if someone added an insult. What about calling someone stupid when they are in fact stupid? What if I just take offense at any word?
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan You misunderstand, adding an insult to an argument does not necessarily make it wrong
But it is an unnecessary distraction thus it is considered fallacious
OED snd
"1.1 Of an argument, syllogism, etc.: Containing a fallacy"
Containing a fallacy, ie not meaning that it is entirely fallacious, but an add hom add's a unnecessary fallacious aspect to the argument
Can you not see this ?
RevDevilin 6 months ago
@RevDevilin The point is you are not going to accept a clear definition and that seems to be that. I don't know where else this conversation can go, but I will personally choose the standard definition that is in every textbook, school and dictionary then some guy. Thanks for the help but I will stick with my logically sound definition, if you please.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan Ok thxs for the chat, Bye
RevDevilin 6 months ago
@RevDevilin Actually I think there is a possibility for a misunderstanding here. Just to clarify and make sure of something. Do you believe that this sentence "you are a moron" is an ad hominem fallacy?
thesparitan 6 months ago
The Ad Populum one also includes Appeal to Dubious Authority.
TuahShinguru 1 year ago
Great video. It's kind of frustrating that intelligent people just can't understand these simple arguments sometimes.
SerMosh 2 years ago
Nothing like some good clean humor that teaches a good lesson!
snackwars 2 years ago