|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2010 : 19:57:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
dglas.....
| This idea of opinion as not applying to statements of fact is a radical change in definition. |
According to the definitions of the word, opinion may or may not apply to statements of fact. Opinion can be a number of different things. It is not necessarily a statement of fact.
|
Ummm. Read it again, bud.
Too busy trying to win a non-existent argument, are we?
|
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 20:05:12 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, sorry. I never replied to the question in the OP's title. My guess is "Smart Buffoonery." |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 20:53:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
We've been over this dozens of times here. Name calling, abuse, ridicule, and derision alone are not argumentum ad hominem.
Saying "you're a retard!" is not ad hom.
Saying, "you're wrong, because you are retarded!" is an ad hom.
This is apparently a difficult distinction for people to grasp. |
The distinction goes even farther, since the sort of ridicule I enjoy the most is, "you're wrong, therefore you're retarded." Not in those words, of course, and it tends to work best only with the most spectacular wrongness. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 21:09:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by dglas
Ridicule is argumentum ad hominem. Period.
|
It seems as if you fail to comprehend what argumentum ad hominem is dglas. Ridicule could be that, but mostly it isn't.
Also, you are in the wrong thread for discussions about opinion.
|
Dave can move the post if he wants to. It seemed to me it applied to both threads.
You may find, Dude, that people are able to grasp more than you imagine - including when "Name calling, abuse, ridicule, and derision" are being used to reflect on an argument *within a context.* It is true that it is technically possible that "Name calling, abuse, ridicule, and derision" may not be intended to reflect on an argument, but if it is within the context of a discussion about that argument, then it is ad hominem.
It seems you fail to comprehend this, Dude. Either that or you are being deliberately disingenuous. Sorry, fallacy of false alternatives; he could be being deliberately uncomprehending.
Walk-through Hint: Sometimes people don't use the sentence structure you want in order to get their meaning across. You need some semblance of versatility to understand what is going on if you are to comprehend such devious attempts to avoid logical analysis. This walk-through hint will come in handy later if you move on to the point in the game where symbolic logic is used.
Are we really supposed to assume that whenever someone says something like, for example, "Dude is a pompous, arrogant, mindlessly incoherent, intro-logic-frosh-failure, moronic intellectual pipsqueak with no ability to comprehend context and mindlessly trying to control conversations by imposing his contrived stipulations" it has no bearing whatsoever on the current discussion context? 
Let's hold a vote.
"Dude is a worthless moron."
Now this was written in this post. How many assume it has nothing to do with Dude in the context of this post?
( ) Clearly it is independent of the context of the post.
( ) Clearly it is not independent of the context of the post.
If I wrote "Dude is a worthless moron" in a separate post, but still in this thread how many would assume it has nothing to do with Dude in the context of this thread? If you really want, I can do this for your benefit - as an experiment.
( ) Run the experiment.
( ) No need for the experiment; I get it.
If I wrote "Dude is a worthless moron" is a new thread in this forum, how many would assume it nothing to do with Dude in the context of the forum? Again, if you really want, I can do this for your benefit - as an experiment.
( ) Run the experiment.
( ) No need for the experiment; I get it.
Where would I have to write "Dude is a worthless moron" in order for it to be perfectly independent of any context at all? Suggestions, anyone? Please elaborate on your answers.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Oh, and to further perturb the unenlightened (and to be deliberately off-topic just to annoy Dude): Is "Dude is a worthless moron" an opinion?  |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 03/12/2010 21:13:41 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 21:53:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
You may find, Dude, that people are able to grasp more than you imagine - including when "Name calling, abuse, ridicule, and derision" are being used to reflect on an argument *within a context.* It is true that it is technically possible that "Name calling, abuse, ridicule, and derision" may not be intended to reflect on an argument, but if it is within the context of a discussion about that argument, then it is ad hominem. |
I find it is rather easy to tell (regardless of sentence structure) whether an insult is a premise for an argument or a conclusion of one. Name-calling as a premise is the logical fallacy we all know as "argumentum ad hominem." Name-calling as a conclusion is not.
So yes, context is important. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 22:03:38 [Permalink]
|
dglas, you might find this web page worthy of a bookmark (bolding mine):
[An] ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. |
Ad hominem fallacies are actually quite rare. Just insulting someone by calling them a moron (or a whole list of invectives) really doesn't qualify as an ad hom.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/12/2010 22:13:21 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 22:12:06 [Permalink]
|
dglas.....
| Where would I have to write "Dude is a worthless moron" in order for it to be perfectly independent of any context at all? |
You might try the Bible. Your statement would have plenty of company! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 22:16:56 [Permalink]
|
dglas.....
| Too busy trying to win a non-existent argument, are we? |
Yoda, we're not doing too bad. Thanks for the help! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 22:29:36 [Permalink]
|
dglas, I'm not trying to insult you or be rude, I'm just saying that you obviously don't understand what an argumentum ad hominem is. You are clearly demonstrating that you don't grasp the concept.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2010 : 00:07:38 [Permalink]
|
| I understand perfectly well what an ad hominem is; that it must realate to an argument. I also understand perfectly well what it looks like when someone is conducting one and trying to disingenuously hide their attempt. All that requires is simple acuity. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2010 : 06:56:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
I understand perfectly well what an ad hominem is; that it must realate to an argument. I also understand perfectly well what it looks like when someone is conducting one and trying to disingenuously hide their attempt. All that requires is simple acuity.
|
So you do understand that name calling, even inside an argument, is not always an ad hom? Your previous postings seem to conflict with your new position then.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2010 : 07:28:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
I understand perfectly well what an ad hominem is; that it must realate to an argument. |
Sorta like water vapor relates to global climate change. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2010 : 07:37:51 [Permalink]
|
Going back to the OP:Originally posted by Landrew
When a college professor is fired for writing about Intelligent Design.... |
It would have been nice to see an example of this.| ...I think it only martyrs them deeper in their cause, and men like Ben Stein can come along and heroify them in a film. |
The fact that the stories of persecution in Expelled were wildly exaggerated demonstrates that Ben Stein doesn't need any provocation to fabricate martyrs for the cause.| Perhaps if skeptics spent less time ridiculing and dismissing and more time actually practicing science, we might get to the bottom of so much nonsense a tiny bit faster. |
The bottom was reached many decades ago. Science won, and the Bible lost, period. But straight science cannot fight back against a political argument, which is all that creationism has ever been. But ridicule is a political tool which works quite well under certain conditions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What's the best cure for "Stupid Buffoonery?"
