27 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaRe-read my post, because this is what I am addressing. But instead of stopping with the assumed 'weakness' or 'fallacy' of the method, I am considering whether the argument is employed at a level beyond traditionally considered.
Maybe I was a bit cryptic. But my point was that it's called ad hominem not because attacking the character of your interlocuter is "wrong" but because you are not addressing the issue itself.
I agree that the animosity has (usually) its origins in the difference of ideas, but the "ad hominem" is simply meant that you're directing your argument at " (or the equivalent correct form in Latin 😵) would convey the meaning more explicitly.
Along the lines of dismissing the topic because the person who presents the topic is representative of the ideas (considered to either inform or inspire the topic) which have been previously rejected by the one employing the ad hominem attack.
Topic is dismissed because
Person is an idiot because
Their thinking* is based on something I reject
*Not their thinking relative to the topic, but their world view overall.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThen we disagree about what is "traditionally considered".
Re-read my post, because this is what I am addressing. But instead of stopping with the assumed 'weakness' or 'fallacy' of the method, I am considering whether the argument is employed at a level beyond traditionally considered.
Along the lines of dismissing the topic because the person who presents the topic is representative of the ideas (considered ...[text shortened]... ing I reject
*Not their thinking relative to the topic, but their world view overall.[/b]
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaAh, but you are because you're speaking to the ideas which inform the topic at hand.
I tried! Sorry if I failed... I think you're hung up on the "hominem" part when the fallacy is simply that you're not addressing anything substantive regarding the original argument.
27 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSeems to me that "traditional" or non; established or unconventional; comfortable or contrarian labels all serve as convenient impasse points or simplistic pigeon holes for any collective dialogue obviously still in progress. Seems also that overcoming these (voluntary or involuntary) willful conversational obstacles and getting off dead center requires a further look at the thingyness of the topic question itself. What is the irreducible essence of the thing, that internal dynamic which makes the thing what it is and triggers its external manifestations? Sense is that real/rigid factors such as inordinate hypersensitivity, locked-in negativism, emotional control run amuck, soul vacuum, progressive desperation, etc, may be in play spawning the compensatory behavior.
Then we disagree about what is "traditionally considered".
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnd what's the solution?
Seems to me that "traditional" or non; established or unconventional; comfortable or contrarian labels all serve as convenient impasse points or simplistic pigeon holes for any collective dialogue obviously still in progress. Seems also that overcoming these (voluntary or involuntary) willful conversational obstacles and getting off dead center requires ...[text shortened]... soul vacuum, progressive desperation, etc, may be in play spawning the compensatory behavior.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbywut
Seems to me that "traditional" or non; established or unconventional; comfortable or contrarian labels all serve as convenient impasse points or simplistic pigeon holes for any collective dialogue obviously still in progress. Seems also that overcoming these (voluntary or involuntary) willful conversational obstacles and getting off dead center requires ...[text shortened]... soul vacuum, progressive desperation, etc, may be in play spawning the compensatory behavior.
