Originally posted by PalynkaTrue. Freaky's difficult question, though, is still quite alive and worth pursuing.
And yet one can only dessicate the dead.
There's a world of difference between seeing into a thing and seeing through it.
Not an iota of difference from a chess game. Issue is being equal to the task.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYet it's not clear which one is more apt, depending on the circumstances. Seeing through or seeing into.
True. Freaky's difficult question, though, is [b]still quite alive and worth pursuing.
There's a world of difference between seeing into a thing and seeing through it.
Not an iota of difference from a chess game. Issue is being equal to the task.[/b]
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbythose holes in your purples socks are getting bigger. more hole than sock these days. is this lifted directly from the Encyclopedia of Cod Psychology?
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.
Originally posted by BlackampThe holes you have in your socks are because you don't wash them or cut your toe nails propery.
those holes in my purples socks are getting bigger. more hole than sock these days. is this lifted directly from the Encyclopedia of Cod Psychology?
I see you still haven't learned to use capital letters at the beginning of sentences trev...Ooops blackamps
Reset.
My thought (or question) is related to whether the ad hominem is actually as weak of an argument as is held in certain circles, or that can necessarily be dismissed on the basis of its alleged exclusion of ideas.
An example might help. In school, two of my friends were twin brothers, Carl and Chris. Their relationship, like most twins, was a shared existence in which each knew what the other was thinking as certainly as they knew their own thoughts. On any given day, they would each attempt to get the other one in trouble and the results were dependent upon which of the two was in better command of their emotions.
For instance, Carl might say to Chris something that which, on the surface, appeared innocent and harmless. Something stupid, like, "Did you get that homework assignment done? Man, it sure was hard!" However, to Chris, this was a blatant attempt by Carl to point out Chris' shortcomings in algebra. In other words, they were speaking in a type of shorthand that perhaps most onlookers would miss... and thus be totally stunned by Chris' near-violent reaction to Carl's seemingly innocuous question.
So in this situation, is Chris attack of Carl based on the person, or is Chris speaking to the idea which informed Carl's inquiry--- even though the subliminal message was never actually addressed?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. The fallacy consists in dismissing the argument because the source is considered junk rather than considering the merits of the argument. In many cases it is merely a convenient shortcut, as the probability of the argument's worthlessness is extremely high, based on the track record of the source.
Although the Latin of the word narrows the definition to "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person," can it also be construed as a type of cut-to-the-chase preemptive attack used by one party on the underlying thought process assumed to be employed by the second party? Put another way, the first party rejects the ideas superficially put ...[text shortened]... the foundation in the eyes of the first party... regardless of the topics otherwise in view.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's closer to what I am saying. The shortcut, however, is the ah argument, which only appears as though it is this type of argument. It is addressing the topic by bypassing it and going to the source of the foundation upon which the topic is based.
No. The fallacy consists in dismissing the argument because the source is considered junk rather than considering the merits of the argument. In many cases it is merely a convenient shortcut, as the probability of the argument's worthlessness is extremely high, based on the track record of the source.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't really understand what you are saying.
That's closer to what I am saying. The shortcut, however, is the ah argument, which only appears as though it is this type of argument. It is addressing the topic by bypassing it and going to the source of the foundation upon which the topic is based.
My explanation of what 'ad hominem' means is correct. Motives for using it are legion, speculation thereto cheap.
On a side note, I wish people would distinguish between ad hominem (a logical fallacy) and insult. So frequently people hop up and down with their 'ad hominem! ad hominem!' when they are really dealing with sound argument with some added seasoning.
I advise against using the ad hominem tactic; the best weapons against blatant idiots are silence or feline sadism, according to taste.