All Arguments are Ad Hominems

[Eodnhoj7]

All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated.

This is the reason why many take any refutation of their point of view as personal. All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic interplay between other "I"s.

[Immanuel Can]

All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated.

Inconveniently for your claim, "ad" is Latin for "to," not "from."

[Eodnhoj7]

All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated.

Inconveniently for your claim, "ad" is Latin for "to," not "from."

All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic INTERPLAY between other "I"s.


....Thus "to" applies. The best context is the whole argument.

[Immanuel Can]

All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic INTERPLAY between other "I"s.


....Thus "to" applies. The best context is the whole argument.

Inconveniently for you again, "hominem" means "person," not "whole argument."

You're just plain wrong. As wrong as wrong gets. But maybe in your "subjective interpretation," you're not. So you needn't trouble yourself that the rest of the world knows you're wrong. So, if you take your own claim at face value, you can just continue as is, believing your "subjective interpretation."

[Eodnhoj7]

All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic INTERPLAY between other "I"s.


....Thus "to" applies. The best context is the whole argument.

Inconveniently for you again, "hominem" means "person," not "whole argument."


"All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated."






You're just plain wrong.
As extensions of the perspective, with the perspective being an extension of the person, the argument is an extension of the person.


As wrong as wrong gets. But maybe in your "subjective interpretation," you're not.
Objectivity is group agreement, thus necessitates a subjective element.

So you needn't trouble yourself that the rest of the world knows you're wrong.
Actually the Munchauseen trilemma necessitates many as agreeing with me.

So, if you take your own claim at face value, you can just continue as is, believing your "subjective interpretation."

False, it is objective as stated why above.

[Immanuel Can]

Each argument is a projection of the observer

Simply hogwash. If it's just a "projection," it has no reality, and is a delusion.

Objectivity is group agreement, thus necessitates a subjective element.

Nope. Objectivity is whatever conforms to what's true regardless of what the group thinks.

[Eodnhoj7]

Each argument is a projection of the observer

Simply hogwash. If it's just a "projection," it has no reality, and is a delusion.

Projection necessitates it as an extension of the observer thus real as the observer is real.

Objectivity is group agreement, thus necessitates a subjective element.

Nope. Objectivity is whatever conforms to what's true regardless of what the group thinks.

And this is a group agreed interpretation resulting in another contradiction your stance is full of .

[Immanuel Can]

Projection necessitates it as an extension of the observer thus real as the observer is real.

"The observer is real, therefore his opinion is 'real' (ie. true)."

No, either his opinion is true, or it's false, regardless of who he is. Whether or not he's a "real person" has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.

[Eodnhoj7]

Projection necessitates it as an extension of the observer thus real as the observer is real.

"The observer is real, therefore his opinion is 'real' (ie. true)."

No, either his opinion is true, or it's false, regardless of who he is. Whether or not he's a "real person" has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.

False, it is true and false dependent upon its alignment to context.

"A unicorn exists" is both true and false. It is true under the context of "dream", false under the context "empirical biological organism". Opinion is inseperable from fact under "context". It is separable from fact under context. Opinion is both fact and not fact dependent through the context in which they relate.

Anyhow ...

A context being true or false is subject to a false dichotomy fallacy.

[Immanuel Can]

"A unicorn exists" is both true and false.

Not without you making yet another fallacy, the "fallacy of equivocation," also known as "amphiboly." If you fix the meaning of "exists," and don't equivocate it (just as you admitted to doing) then the statement is simply false.

[Eodnhoj7]

"A unicorn exists" is both true and false.

Not without you making yet another fallacy, the "fallacy of equivocation," also known as "amphiboly." If you fix the meaning of "exists," and don't equivocate it (just as you admitted to doing) then the statement is simply false.

False. Equivocation is subject to equivocation through slippery slope. Equivocation doesn't exist as a fallacy under the stance I argue.

Second it isn't equivocation as one context allows unicorn to equivocate to existence. Under another context unicorn does not equivocate to existence. One contains a middle term through which contexts equivocate, another doesn't. My stance does not allow for universal equivocation precisely because it is context dependent.

Third you equivocating my stance to a fallacy is a fallacy of equivocation.

Fourth the fallacy fallacy allows me to have any perceivable fallacy, you claim, while being correct. Just because the statement contains a fallacy does not necessitate it as false. Considering you believe in fallacies, and I believe they both exist and do not exist simultaneously, my stance is still correct from your premises.

[TheVisionofEr]

All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated.

This is the reason why many take any refutation of their point of view as personal. All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic interplay between other "I"s.

This touches on something extreme. Even the "false" view may be the true "I" in self assertion. A totally faulty, corrupt, utterly without inteligence, ignorant being must still be as it is and assert its being. Aristotle solves the difficulty only by violence, by exclusionary tactics removing the "faulty." The bad scales or flawed brains.

[Eodnhoj7]

All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated.

This is the reason why many take any refutation of their point of view as personal. All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic interplay between other "I"s.

This touches on something extreme. Even the "false" view may be the true "I" in self assertion. A totally faulty, corrupt, utterly without inteligence, ignorant being must still be as it is and assert its being. Aristotle solves the difficulty only by violence, by exclusionary tactics removing the "faulty." The bad scales or flawed brains.

No disagreement, but Aristotle was asserting himself as well. Aristotelian identity laws are cloned versions of Aristotle.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29026

[commonsense]

"A unicorn exists" is both true and false.

Not without you making yet another fallacy, the "fallacy of equivocation," also known as "amphiboly." If you fix the meaning of "exists," and don't equivocate it (just as you admitted to doing) then the statement is simply false.

False. Equivocation is subject to equivocation through slippery slope. Equivocation doesn't exist as a fallacy under the stance I argue.

Second it isn't equivocation as one context allows unicorn to equivocate to existence. Under another context unicorn does not equivocate to existence. One contains a middle term through which contexts equivocate, another doesn't. My stance does not allow for universal equivocation precisely because it is context dependent.

Third you equivocating my stance to a fallacy is a fallacy of equivocation.

Fourth the fallacy fallacy allows me to have any perceivable fallacy, you claim, while being correct. Just because the statement contains a fallacy does not necessitate it as false. Considering you believe in fallacies, and I believe they both exist and do not exist simultaneously, my stance is still correct from your premises.

I think the way that you use “equivocation” it means that the rules of logic don’t apply.

[Sculptor]

All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated.

This is the reason why many take any refutation of their point of view as personal. All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic interplay between other "I"s.

No.
I do not know you and I do not care to know you.
Despite this, your argument is false. It is false for the simple reason that anyone could attempt to make this argument, but no matter who or what they are they would also be wrong.