Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are wrong because you never finished college.

{is an example of an ad hominem}

no, that's an example of a false accusation. although, it can also be an ad hominem at the same time.

Try and use your brain. Your sentence is self contradictory.

well, i'm certainly not using yours. it's not a contradiction, son. if false statements can also be considered ad hominems. if they must be true statements, then i'm sure we can still fit it in there somewhere, using relativism (relative truth).

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

alpha wrote: no, that's an example of a false accusation. although, it can also be an ad hominem at the same time.

Try and use your brain. Your sentence is self contradictory.

well, i'm certainly not using yours. it's not a contradiction, son. if false statements can also be considered ad hominems. if they must be true statements, then i'm sure we can still fit it in there somewhere, using relativism (relative truth).

Please acknowledge the word "EXAMPLE". I don't know and I don't care if YOU have been to college or if you finished college. It remains and EXAMPLE.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

alpha wrote: no, that's an example of a false accusation. although, it can also be an ad hominem at the same time.

Try and use your brain. Your sentence is self contradictory.

well, i'm certainly not using yours. it's not a contradiction, son. if false statements can also be considered ad hominems. if they must be true statements, then i'm sure we can still fit it in there somewhere, using relativism (relative truth).

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Please acknowledge the word "EXAMPLE". I don't know and I don't care if YOU have been to college or if you finished college. It remains and EXAMPLE.

i know it was just an example. i'm saying that in addition to it being an ad hominem (which includes true statements), it's also a false accusation. i don't think i can simplify my point any further than this. perhaps your dog can explain it to you.

alpha wrote:

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Try and use your brain. Your sentence is self contradictory.

well, i'm certainly not using yours. it's not a contradiction, son. if false statements can also be considered ad hominems. if they must be true statements, then i'm sure we can still fit it in there somewhere, using relativism (relative truth).

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Please acknowledge the word "EXAMPLE". I don't know and I don't care if YOU have been to college or if you finished college. It remains and EXAMPLE.

i know it was just an example. i'm saying that in addition to it being an ad hominem (which includes true statements), it's also a false accusation. i don't think i can simplify my point any further than this. perhaps your dog can explain it to you.

You could have been more faithful to the truth by NO prefacing your statement with "no". Since is was in fact an example of an adhominem, the preface would have to have been "yes".

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You could have been more faithful to the truth by NO prefacing your statement with "no". Since is was in fact an example of an adhominem, the preface would have to have been "yes".

ok, i accept this.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You could have been more faithful to the truth by NO prefacing your statement with "no". Since is was in fact an example of an adhominem, the preface would have to have been "yes".

ok, i accept this.

I think what happens here is that people get into adversarial mode and tend to start on the attack. It because such a habit that each person's response is immediately also adversarial.
I've see two people argue against each other for two pages even though they were on the same side of the argument.

Starting a post with "wrong". or "no" immediately gets the reader back in the defensive, and they don't always bother to carefully read the ongoing argument.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think what happens here is that people get into adversarial mode and tend to start on the attack. It because such a habit that each person's response is immediately also adversarial.
I've see two people argue against each other for two pages even though they were on the same side of the argument.

Starting a post with "wrong". or "no" immediately gets the reader back in the defensive, and they don't always bother to carefully read the ongoing argument.

i know what you mean. i'm working on being more diplomatic in my arguments.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think what happens here is that people get into adversarial mode and tend to start on the attack. It because such a habit that each person's response is immediately also adversarial.
I've see two people argue against each other for two pages even though they were on the same side of the argument.

Starting a post with "wrong". or "no" immediately gets the reader back in the defensive, and they don't always bother to carefully read the ongoing argument.

i know what you mean. i'm working on being more diplomatic in my arguments.

I'll keep you honest!

Dalek Prime wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:No, you're just stupid, I realize. And where is my ad hominem? Correctly stating you couldnt get off your lazy ass and read something you want to pontificate on? I've given you the opening to ask questions on that which you don't understand, and all you do is waste the opportunity in bickering, because your ego is bruised.

No, but you're a drunkin fool, apparently! So keep on playing the idiot, you wear it well!

You're busy with the crown, so I'll wait my turn.

Don't drink, BTW. Apparently you can't get anything right.

Anyways, READ THE BOOK before you spout ignorance again. No excuses. You've had half a year.

Just think, if your weren't, then you couldn't do all this fun stuff.

You that speak of non existence being better are just whiners because things haven't gone your way, Whaaa fucking Whaaa! Life is never gonna be perfect, but the alternative....

Exactly, it's nothingness. There is no better or worse contained in nothingness.

OK, time for truth, what has been taken away from all you that believe you shouldn't be here, as if your parents could have had a choice, as to which egg and sperm should have been flushed, some sort of precognition of an egg and sperms wants. You people are laughable, seriously! So what, are you a paraplegic? Blind? Poor? Unlucky in love? Pissed that you were a boy and not a girl? You know all these can be fixed right?

It's an utterly ridiculous consideration.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Do people think that ad hominem sounds better than "insult"?
If they want to appear clever they would do well to know the difference between ad hominem and insult rather than conflate the two things.

ad hominem [ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]

adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
--dictionary.reference.com--

One and the same thing, but for ones ignorance I guess!!! But with HC it's no surprise, we could fill an encyclopedia set.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Ad hominem: attacking the argument by calling into question the character or personality of the person making it. SoB did this to alpha, calling into question his mental outlook. Did it to me in my intro, where I called him on it.

Insult: calling me a drunk, baselessly.

What he said was "This young one has a problem thinking clearly, but seemingly has limited freedom, thus requires cheering up.".
For this to be more than an insult and an ad hominem SoB would have had to say that the argument was thus, because this young one has a problem thinking, but that is not the case, as he explained why the argument was thus on other grounds.

Thanks HC, you at least understand me, when I sometimes don't screw up my meaning. This, my meaning in this case, is close to you, no? And whether you believe it or not, my heart goes out to all that understands this all too well!

People that don't want to be, obviously have had hardships, making it hard for them, to want to be. I've had it hard, yet still I want to be, yet I fight to make things right, but then I've never been physically limited, a much truer challenge, that I can only imagine.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Ad hominem: attacking the argument by calling into question the character or personality of the person making it. SoB did this to alpha, calling into question his mental outlook. Did it to me in my intro, where I called him on it.

Insult: calling me a drunk, baselessly.

What he said was "This young one has a problem thinking clearly, but seemingly has limited freedom, thus requires cheering up.".
For this to be more than an insult and an ad hominem SoB would have had to say that the argument was thus, because this young one has a problem thinking, but that is not the case, as he explained why the argument was thus on other grounds.

what other grounds? when debating philosophical viewpoints, saying such things (that spheres usually attributes to those who disagree with him) is the epitome of ad hominems.

Everyone here in this debate has contributed to ad hominems, even skip, on rare occasions. I originally thought he would never do such, but in those days he just isolated himself, only involving himself in Philosophy Now articles. He seems to have branched out now, sharing himself with the common rabble. I thought that maybe he wasn't strong enough, but in fact he is! I always knew that his arguments were pretty strong. Sorry that I'm concentrating my commentary on you skip, but it's purely with reverence that I do so.

Dalek Prime wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:No, you're just stupid, I realize. And where is my ad hominem? Correctly stating you couldnt get off your lazy ass and read something you want to pontificate on? I've given you the opening to ask questions on that which you don't understand, and all you do is waste the opportunity in bickering, because your ego is bruised.

No, but you're a drunkin fool, apparently! So keep on playing the idiot, you wear it well!

You're busy with the crown, so I'll wait my turn.

Don't drink, BTW. Apparently you can't get anything right.

Anyways, READ THE BOOK before you spout ignorance again. No excuses. You've had half a year.

If you think for a second, that I'd give such a book the time of day, you're nuts!

Skip wrote:Which question?

Do people think that ad hominem sounds better than "insult"?

Yes, they do. And they're right; it does.

I agree that, that's the typical case of the matter. Purely from observation, and then increasing my vocabulary so as to do the same. Hey I tried to be a hold out, and relatively, I still am, but I'm coming along. Though I really do hate joining, have you guys ever seen any indicators of this.

Dalek Prime wrote:Ad hominem: attacking the argument by calling into question the character or personality of the person making it. SoB did this to alpha, calling into question his mental outlook. Did it to me in my intro, where I called him on it.

Insult: calling me a drunk, baselessly.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
What he said was "This young one has a problem thinking clearly, but seemingly has limited freedom, thus requires cheering up.".
For this to be more than an insult and an ad hominem SoB would have had to say that the argument was thus, because this young one has a problem thinking, but that is not the case, as he explained why the argument was thus on other grounds.

what other grounds? when debating philosophical viewpoints, saying such things (that spheres usually attributes to those who disagree with him) is the epitome of ad hominems.

You are wrong because you never finished college.

{is an example of an ad hominem}

Sure it can be, as it indeed fits:

ad hominem [ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Though it could be a reasonable thing to say, if ones argument was based in ignorance, that would have otherwise been corrected if they had attended college.