Philosophy Now Forum

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.

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.

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

{is an example of an ad hominem}

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.
Good one!
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).
No, those are just falsehoods! Especially for one that just doesn't get relativism. (now that last bit was two for one!)

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

Hobbes' Choice 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).

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

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.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

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.

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.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

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!

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