28 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeAs I recall, I was trying to get you to answer a question with an answer, rather than a further question.
You were trying to force me to accept your proposal ? Remember ?
Incidentally, a yes/no answer would have done rather than a full frontal assault on my memory.
28 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewell...... a full frontal assault on your memory ?
As I recall, I was trying to get you to answer a question with an answer, rather than a further question.
Incidentally, a yes/no answer would have done rather than a full frontal assault on my memory.
?????? ....... I hope this is humour ....... ya neva know these days.
29 Sep 05
Originally posted by nicofelleYes, it does. The Ad Hominem Fallacy is an argument of the general form:
Doesn't it actually have to say, "your argument is wrong [b]because you're stupid/you just want it to be right/etc."
Rather than actual insults themselves being ad homs, you have to say their position is wrong because you find fault with their person...[/b]
(1) My opponent claims that P.
(2) My opponent, however, is a jackass.
(3) Hence, it is not the case that P.
Ivanhoe, and other well-meaning folk on the internet (from whence he cuts and pastes these descriptions of fallacies), are simply incorrect on this point. They use the term "Ad Hominem Fallacy" to refer to any insult whatever. But, of course, an insult that does not take the place of a premise in an actual argument cannot be a fallacy at all, because it doesn't aim at establishing anything as being true or false. Only forms of reasoning or inferences can be fallacious, and insults are neither of these things. Most everybody here thinks that actual Ad Hominem Fallacies are dumb. We differ over the use of insults.
29 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeCrud. In its circumlocutory way, the article essentially claims that "marriage acknowledges and secures the relation between a child and a particular set of parents." This arbitrary position was echoed and elaborated by various thread contributors and rebutted by others.
If my memory serves me well nobody took the trouble to address it.
29 Sep 05
10 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI disagree. It all depends on definitions, isn't it Bbarr ? .... comme d'habitude ..... If a negative remark is not aimed at refuting a debater's claim but directed at the person this is an Ad Hominem, whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not.
Yes, it does.
You could even categorise an insult, any insult, name calling, under the Fallacy of "Changing the Subject" .......... and talking down on people, talking to them or talking about them in a derogatory way could also be seen as an attempt of "Changing the Subject".
We differ over the use of insults.
The ToS are very clear about insults and abusive language.
Only forms of reasoning or inferences can be fallacious, .....
Fallacy: Personal Attack
Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
Description of Personal Attack.
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
Of course I can look for more evidence but i'm afraid you will state: "Ivanhoe, and other well-meaning folk on the internet (from whence he cuts and pastes these descriptions of fallacies), are simply incorrect on this point."
Isn't this an instance of the fallacy of "Poisoning the Well", being me as a well and the internet as another one ? Of course not, Bbarr will claim.
Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
If, Bbarr, you take the stance that my sources aren't worth considering then please give me links which support your view. There must be hundreds and hundreds.
In some other thread I asked for links about online formal logic courses. If my memory serves me well you didn't have any information at all for me. Do you have any links ?
29 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo, in your view there still isn't a valid liberal case against gay marriage. Right ?
Crud. In its circumlocutory way, the article essentially claims that "marriage acknowledges and secures the relation between a child and a particular set of parents." This arbitrary position was echoed and elaborated by various thread contributors and rebutted by others.
