Originally posted by FMFYou sent me off to look up that one - and included was this list:
Just trying to teach you about "poisoning the well" while I'm at it.
See also
Ad hominem
Appeal to ridicule
Black propaganda
Fruit of the poisonous tree
Guilt by association
Prolepsis
Scorched earth
I didn't know there were so many ways to be unpleasant to other people. Guess I've led a sheltered life until I came to RHP.
Originally posted by divegeesterOn the Spirituality Forum, he's insisting over and over and over again that it was NOT an ad hominem. And yet here on the General Forum he's admitting it's an ad hominem but arguing it's "legitimate" by quoting wikipedia. 😀
I guess your rant at me must be okay then.
Originally posted by KewpieThere is a difference between an ad hominem fallacy, as opposed to an argumentum ad hominem. You will find this interesting,
Commonsense says that the legitimacy argument would apply only to a very small subset of ad hominem attacks.
http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/adhominemissa.htm
Interesting, but a bit over my head, I had a good deal of difficulty following the dissertation and picking out relevant points. One paragraph seemed to be relevant:
" Thus the sort of personal attack labelled as an abusive ad hominem does in fact occur with some frequency. It may have various functions. It can be a relevant attack on some aspect of an opponent’s ethos that bears on the acceptability of her position. It can be purely diversionary, an attempt to divert attention from the substantive claim or argument of one’s opponent. In the latter case, it is generally objectionable as a rhetorical strategy, but is not a kind of reasoning, and so not a mistake in reasoning. Hence, on the conception of fallacy with which we are working, it is not a fallacy. Rarely, as in the lecture by Adam Smith, it reasons explicitly from some deficiency in a person’s makeup to the inadequacy of the person’s reasoning. But real cases of the abusive ad hominem do not make the crude mistake of reasoning from some fault of character or behaviour in an opponent to the unacceptability of that opponent’s statement or argument. Nor would addressees be deceived by such a crude mistake."
I take this to mean that ad hominem responses to statements are not made out of ignorance, nor out of an attempt to trick the listener, but are deliberately intended to provoke the listener into some response which can be more easily attacked than the original statement.
Originally posted by KewpieYes indeed, they might even be true, which would not make them fallacious in the
Interesting, but a bit over my head, I had a good deal of difficulty following the dissertation and picking out relevant points. One paragraph seemed to be relevant:
" Thus the sort of personal attack labelled as an abusive ad hominem does in fact occur with some frequency. It may have various functions. It can be a relevant attack on some aspect of a the listener into some response which can be more easily attacked than the original statement.
least, simply irrelevant to the argument, or diversionary or put the recipient on the
back foot as you say.
The account of Bridget Bardot is an interesting one, for clearly she has made
provocative statements which were deemed to be racial, anti-Islamic, anti gay etc
etc attested to and upheld in court, never the less, does this diminish her ability or
suitability to give testimony on behalf of animal rights issues? Well it might, but
that's not really the issue. The accusations of course are relevant because they do
cast doubt on her compassion, but this is a kind of undermining of her suitability as
a spokesperson rather than a direct attempt to address the cull. Its an abusive
argumentum ad hominem, not a logical fallacy. Yet even here she was not even
making an argument , merely stating that the seal cull is a massacre, which in fact it
might be.
In the 21st century world "celebrity" is everything. If you're a "celebrity" people listen to what you say, even though it's usually been written by someone else and you're only spouting it for money. What is it about human beings that makes them want to believe stuff just because a "celebrity" said it? (My definition of "celebrity" is: a person famous for being famous, not necessarily because they are valuable human beings - they usually aren't.)
Originally posted by KewpieIts really interesting, sometimes i watch Russia today, its a news program and they
In the 21st century world "celebrity" is everything. If you're a "celebrity" people listen to what you say, even though it's usually been written by someone else and you're only spouting it for money. What is it about human beings that makes them want to believe stuff just because a "celebrity" said it? (My definition of "celebrity" is: a person famous fo ...[text shortened]... mous, not necessarily because they are valuable human beings - they usually aren't.)
interview people via webcam on various issues, none of which i have ever heard of, no
doubt their arguments are very valid, however, if they were famous and rich and
successful, it seems that their arguments would carry more weight, simply by virtue of
them being delivered by someone rich and famous, which, when you think of it, is a
nonsense really.
Originally posted by FMFDefending a lost position by arguing over a technicality has been tried before.
On the Spirituality Forum, he's insisting over and over and over again that it was NOT an ad hominem. And yet here on the General Forum he's admitting it's an ad hominem but arguing it's "legitimate" by quoting wikipedia. 😀
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou cannot make this case for what you posted, though. Your ad hominem included several insinuations and claims that you cannot possibly substantiate and therefore, in all decency, you had no business airing them. You suggested that he was feeding his mind on "hate speech all the time". Hate speech? All the time? You can't prove this. Indeed, you can't even possible know.
Please note that Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning [b]is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.[/b]
You suggested that his mind or actions are "being controlled" by people who are critical of your organization. Controlled? You cannot substantiate this. You suggested that his "association" with your organization's critics has "made him unhappy". You cannot prove this at all.
You suggested that he has "become embittered" because he has read things written by ex-JWs. You simply cannot substantiate this. You went so far as to claim all these insinuations and presumptions were "incontrovertible facts" when you cannot establish this for any of them which makes airing them under that 'guise' a textbook case of an indecent and gratuitous ad hominem attack.
In other words, despite your claims, it was just a deeply personal attack on another poster with remarks about things like his emotional state, his mental health, his integrity, his honesty and the alleged psychological and moral effects of "association" with people you happen to disagree with.
This all happened on a thread where you had clearly lost your composure and, to my way of thinking, had not defended your stance on the issues in question very well. It came across as a kind of 'last resort', albeit one that was dragged out over page after page after page.
That you are still trying to justify it with a wikipedia link, an appeal to the authority of Doug Walton, or whatever, and claims that your smears against the other poster were somehow simply "facts", all reflects very, very poorly on you robbie.
Originally posted by KewpieMoney is what makes the man or woman, the more you have the more important you are. This is FACT!!!
In the 21st century world "celebrity" is everything. If you're a "celebrity" people listen to what you say, even though it's usually been written by someone else and you're only spouting it for money. What is it about human beings that makes them want to believe stuff just because a "celebrity" said it? (My definition of "celebrity" is: a person famous fo ...[text shortened]... mous, not necessarily because they are valuable human beings - they usually aren't.)
I can see the evidence in these posts of people who like to argue, even if they say other wise. 😉 😉
Originally posted by Very RustyMoney is what makes the man or woman, the more you have the more important you are. This is FACT!!!
Money is what makes the man or woman, the more you have the more important you are. This is FACT!!!
I can see the evidence in these posts of people who like to argue, even if they say other wise. 😉 😉
It might be a fact, but its not a good indication of ones suitability for a post, its akin to a
chess player entering politics, what makes one think simply because one can play a
board game one is best fitted to running a country? having money does not mean that
you are in a position to offer advice, run a country or do anything other than make
money. Would you ask Donald Trump for marital advice? No, why not?