False, strawman taken out of context. The specific argument was addressing the circularity of his argument, in that context it is not an ad hominum. Under a general context, as an extension of the point of the observer and addressing the perspective of the observer, it is still an ad hominum. It is both an ad hominum, in addressing the individual through the argument, and not an ad hominum in the respect the particular addressed is circularity. All arguments, as I have stated elsewhere: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=28743, are simultaneously true and false. In this case both an ad hominum and not an ad hominum.
You just said above, “It isn’t an ad hominem.”
Therefore there is at least one argument that is not an ad hominem argument.
Therefore not all arguments are ad hominems.
In the particular context addressed (circularity) it was not an ad-hominum. In the general context all arguments are ad hominems. It is both an ad-hominem and not an ad-hominem simultaneously just as all arguments are simultaneously truth and false values: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=28743
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:36 pm
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.
What if the person that proposes a theory also provides an argument and a counterargument to it? Would they, in this case, apply an ad hominem attack against themselves through the counterargument?
Next, if a different person agreed with the argument, but not the counter-argument, would they in effect do an ad hominem attack because they don't agree with the counter-argument?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:36 pm
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.
What if the person that proposes a theory also provides an argument and a counterargument to it? Would they, in this case, apply an ad hominem attack against themselves through the counterargument?
It would be a self dialogue where the subjective self is resolved into a self reflective dialogue in which the subjective state becomes objective due to multiple subjective states observing the same phenomenon.
Next, if a different person agreed with the argument, but not the counter-argument, would they in effect do an ad hominem attack because they don't agree with the counter-argument?
They would be attacking a perspective inherent within the one observer. They would be disagreeing with an argument which exists as an extension of the observer.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:45 pm Your stance is circular: I am wrong because anyone who makes this argument is wrong. The argument is wrong because it is wrong.
No, you dolt. I gave you an example of how bad your argument is, since I can, make an argument without making an ad hominem.
I said your argument is circular, not an ad hominum.
Here's an argument.
The geocentric hypothesis is false because the apparent movement of the night stars, and lack of stellar parallax, would have to represent those stars moving at speeds well in excess of the speed of light.
Noe tell me how this is an ad hominem.
It isn't an ad hominum, now it is a strawman. I said it is circular, that being the prior argument, not an ad hominum (see the bold).
Assuming you are addressing the thread however, all measurements, including those of the stars, are relative to the point of the observer. The beginning measurement is subject to the premise of the observer. In this case it is the sun being a more accurate point of measurement than the earth. This premise is chosen by the observer. Heliocentrism and geocentrism are beginning points of measurements. The mayans used venus: http://edj.net/mc2012/fap13.html. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_astronomy
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:32 pm
No, you dolt. I gave you an example of how bad your argument is, since I can, make an argument without making an ad hominem.
I said your argument is circular, not an ad hominum.
Here's an argument.
The geocentric hypothesis is false because the apparent movement of the night stars, and lack of stellar parallax, would have to represent those stars moving at speeds well in excess of the speed of light.
Noe tell me how this is an ad hominem.
It isn't an ad hominum, now it is a strawman. I said it is circular, that being the prior argument, not an ad hominum (see the bold).
Assuming you are addressing the thread however, all measurements, including those of the stars, are relative to the point of the observer. The beginning measurement is subject to the premise of the observer. In this case it is the sun being a more accurate point of measurement than the earth. This premise is chosen by the observer. Heliocentrism and geocentrism are beginning points of measurements. The mayans used venus: http://edj.net/mc2012/fap13.html. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_astronomy
No ad hominems here, as I said.
To negate any argument is to negate the point of view of the observer as the argument is an extension of the point of view of the observer. All arguments exist as inseperable from the observer. So while in the particular sense the argument is not addressed to the observer, in the general sense it is. The argument is both ad hoministic and not ad hoministic.
Assuming you are addressing the thread however, all measurements, including those of the stars, are relative to the point of the observer. The beginning measurement is subject to the premise of the observer. In this case it is the sun being a more accurate point of measurement than the earth. This premise is chosen by the observer. Heliocentrism and geocentrism are beginning points of measurements. The mayans used venus: http://edj.net/mc2012/fap13.html. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_astronomy
No ad hominems here, as I said.
To negate any argument is to negate the point of view of the observer as the argument is an extension of the point of view of the observer. All arguments exist as inseperable from the observer. So while in the particular sense the argument is not addressed to the observer, in the general sense it is. The argument is both ad hoministic and not ad hoministic.
This argument has nothing to do with me, or any observation I have ever made.
To negate any argument is to negate the point of view of the observer as the argument is an extension of the point of view of the observer. All arguments exist as inseperable from the observer. So while in the particular sense the argument is not addressed to the observer, in the general sense it is. The argument is both ad hoministic and not ad hoministic.
This argument has nothing to do with me, or any observation I have ever made.
False, it is an extension of your angle of awareness, even in how you word it is due to your angle.
To negate any argument is to negate the point of view of the observer as the argument is an extension of the point of view of the observer. All arguments exist as inseperable from the observer. So while in the particular sense the argument is not addressed to the observer, in the general sense it is. The argument is both ad hoministic and not ad hoministic.
This argument has nothing to do with me, or any observation I have ever made.
False, it is an extension of your angle of awareness, even in how you word it is due to your angle.
Rubbish.
I don't have any "angle" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.
False, it is an extension of your angle of awareness, even in how you word it is due to your angle.
Rubbish.
I don't have any "angle" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.
That is your perspective.
You simply do not understand the whole point of ad hominem.. It is the fallacy of attacking the person INSTEAD of some aspect of the argument they are offering.
FOr example. I would have to say that your argument is not wrong for the obvious reasons but it would be wrong because you are white, or a sales assistant, or born after 1970, or that you do not have a degree in philosophy.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:08 pm
Rubbish.
I don't have any "angle" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.
That is your perspective.
You simply do not understand the whole point of ad hominem.. It is the fallacy of attacking the person INSTEAD of some aspect of the argument they are offering.
FOr example. I would have to say that your argument is not wrong for the obvious reasons but it would be wrong because you are white, or a sales assistant, or born after 1970, or that you do not have a degree in philosophy.
All arguments are extensions of the observer, to attack the argument is to attack the observer in the general sense. In the particular sense attacking the argument is not an ad hominum. It is both ad hoministic and non ad hoministic at the same time in different respects.
You simply do not understand the whole point of ad hominem.. It is the fallacy of attacking the person INSTEAD of some aspect of the argument they are offering.
FOr example. I would have to say that your argument is not wrong for the obvious reasons but it would be wrong because you are white, or a sales assistant, or born after 1970, or that you do not have a degree in philosophy.
All arguments are extensions of the observer, to attack the argument is to attack the observer in the general sense.
But an ad hominem is in a SPECIFIC sense. It is selecting a specific characteristic of the "man" to denigrate their argument.
In the particular sense attacking the argument is not an
ad hominum. It is both ad hoministic and non ad hoministic at the same time in different respects.
You simply do not understand the whole point of ad hominem.. It is the fallacy of attacking the person INSTEAD of some aspect of the argument they are offering.
FOr example. I would have to say that your argument is not wrong for the obvious reasons but it would be wrong because you are white, or a sales assistant, or born after 1970, or that you do not have a degree in philosophy.
All arguments are extensions of the observer, to attack the argument is to attack the observer in the general sense.
But an ad hominem is in a SPECIFIC sense. It is selecting a specific characteristic of the "man" to denigrate their argument.
Not if the argument is an extension of the observer, in those respects it is general as well.
In the particular sense attacking the argument is not an
ad hominum. It is both ad hoministic and non ad hoministic at the same time in different respects.
