Philosophy Now Forum

I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but I’m wondering if those of you who engage in logical fallacies realize it. The most common one I’ve seen is ad hominem attack. Don’t people realize when they engage in it, that it makes them look less logical?

Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring
2. Strawman - creating easy argument to then refute
3. Black or White, Either-Or thinking, False dilemma
4. Hasty generalization - slippery slope/domino theory, non-sequitur, false cause, post hoc
5. Red herring - distraction
6. Begging the question - loaded question
7. Special pleading/exceptions, fallacy of equivocation, stacking the deck, moving the goalposts
8. Fallacy of circular reasoning
9. Appeal to emotion, ad misericordiam
10. Appeal to authority/tradition - similar: appeal to the people “argumentum adpopulum, bandwagon, spotlight fallacy

Would you add, subtract or otherwise change any of the above?

Do you think people who engage in logical fallacies are lacking in logical or emotional intelligence? (Or is that begging the question? )

Perspective wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:14 pm I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but I’m wondering if those of you who engage in logical fallacies realize it. The most common one I’ve seen is ad hominem attack. Don’t people realize when they engage in it, that it makes them look less logical?

Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring
2. Strawman - creating easy argument to then refute
3. Black or White, Either-Or thinking, False dilemma
4. Hasty generalization - slippery slope/domino theory, non-sequitur, false cause, post hoc
5. Red herring - distraction
6. Begging the question - loaded question
7. Special pleading/exceptions, fallacy of equivocation, stacking the deck, moving the goalposts
8. Fallacy of circular reasoning
9. Appeal to emotion, ad misericordiam
10. Appeal to authority/tradition - similar: appeal to the people “argumentum adpopulum, bandwagon, spotlight fallacy

Would you add, subtract or otherwise change any of the above?

Do you think people who engage in logical fallacies are lacking in logical or emotional intelligence? (Or is that begging the question? )

I see you are a fan of Aristotle the person who actually did poison the well, so to speak.
Draw it with your own hand, as Plato recommended. A simple line segment, the simplest thing possible, a binary construct. Every thing in all of reality is defined as a relative difference within correlatives, i.e., stop, go, stop. Just like the computer, it can process all information based on two concepts, stop and go.
So, look at what you wrote. It is not like what Plato stated, nor what is demonstrated by the computer. Your own words are a cluster fuck.

Aristotle did not understand Plato well enough to even follow his demonstrations.

So, When you entered formal classrooms, as I did. Did you notice something was wrong with education? Is it possible that in Grammar, the mind processes information one way, In arithmetic another, etc., that your schools, our schools was teaching us that a mind processes information in multitudes of ways, and all you had to do is pull one out of your ass?

If you start with two, and only two states to name, how many errors are possible?
When you treat a relative as if it were correlative, or a correlative as if it is a relative, i.e. you cannot tell the difference between a noun and verb nor how to add and subtract them.
Geometry is the simplest binary grammar possible, as it is established on an arithmetic correspondence. Can you even follow that? We have a whole history of people, when trying it, fly off into the bannaosphere of bull shit. Can you stay grounded? If you cannot follow the simplest possible written grammar, you can in no wise comprehend any more complicated.
If you cannot agree with yourself using geometry, agree with the conventions of your own hand, you can never become a civilized human being. There is no civilization on the earth today. Becoming is not being.

Every Grammar book usually start with logical fallacies, that words represent thoughts, ideas, etc. Not one of the authors can recognize a self-referential fallacy when it is biting them in the ass.
We are an information processor, the information comes from perception. We virtualize perceptions, by grammar systems. Confusing perception with ourselves is a major fallacy. The confusing the perceptible with the intelligible, i.e., anthropomorphosis.
Virtual Reality, i.e., the intelligible is suppose to be an abstracted, parsed portion of actual, or perceptible reality. The inability to comprehend the similar idea in all of the perceptible means, as Plato noted, the inability to use the similar idea for the construction of grammar. That similar idea, is the definition of a thing, every thing is some material in some shape, form, limit. i.e. a binary construct.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:01 pm

Perspective wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:14 pm I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but I’m wondering if those of you who engage in logical fallacies realize it. The most common one I’ve seen is ad hominem attack. Don’t people realize when they engage in it, that it makes them look less logical?

Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring
2. Strawman - creating easy argument to then refute
3. Black or White, Either-Or thinking, False dilemma
4. Hasty generalization - slippery slope/domino theory, non-sequitur, false cause, post hoc
5. Red herring - distraction
6. Begging the question - loaded question
7. Special pleading/exceptions, fallacy of equivocation, stacking the deck, moving the goalposts
8. Fallacy of circular reasoning
9. Appeal to emotion, ad misericordiam
10. Appeal to authority/tradition - similar: appeal to the people “argumentum adpopulum, bandwagon, spotlight fallacy

Would you add, subtract or otherwise change any of the above?

Do you think people who engage in logical fallacies are lacking in logical or emotional intelligence? (Or is that begging the question? )

I see you are a fan of Aristotle the person who actually did poison the well, so to speak.
Draw it with your own hand, as Plato recommended. A simple line segment, the simplest thing possible, a binary construct. Every thing in all of reality is defined as a relative difference within correlatives, i.e., stop, go, stop. Just like the computer, it can process all information based on two concepts, stop and go.
So, look at what you wrote. It is not like what Plato stated, nor what is demonstrated by the computer. Your own words are a cluster fuck.

Aristotle did not understand Plato well enough to even follow his demonstrations.

So, When you entered formal classrooms, as I did. Did you notice something was wrong with education? Is it possible that in Grammar, the mind processes information one way, In arithmetic another, etc., that your schools, our schools was teaching us that a mind processes information in multitudes of ways, and all you had to do is pull one out of your ass?

If you start with two, and only two states to name, how many errors are possible?
When you treat a relative as if it were correlative, or a correlative as if it is a relative, i.e. you cannot tell the difference between a noun and verb nor how to add and subtract them.
Geometry is the simplest binary grammar possible, as it is established on an arithmetic correspondence. Can you even follow that? We have a whole history of people, when trying it, fly off into the bannaosphere of bull shit. Can you stay grounded? If you cannot follow the simplest possible written grammar, you can in no wise comprehend any more complicated.
If you cannot agree with yourself using geometry, agree with the conventions of your own hand, you can never become a civilized human being. There is no civilization on the earth today. Becoming is not being.

I know 'the one' who started this thread knew it, (purposefully?), made a grammatical error in the the thread title, and who is also wondering if those who engage in logical fallacies realize it, but I wonder if "phil8659" realizes just how many grammatical errors it makes within this forum?

Also, for one who believes that if it is not the smartest person ever, then it would be in the top two, it makes me wonder how and why it, still, has not yet realized why it is not being heard, and understood, here.

Age is always trying to prove to the world of how much of an idiot he is. That is his way of getting attention like a little doggy. Never can add anything of substance to a thread, only his barking for attention. You might actually want to read works on Grammar, Common Grammar is not like arithmetic, or algebra, etc., it is Common Grammar, informal grammar and only assholes like you nit pick non essentials because you are too stupid to add anything of substance.
So, keep barking doggy, someone will play with you eventually.

Point to any Common Grammar Book on the planet, which one of them has ever been claimed to be a standard or formal by any educational system, or in your words, passed a peer review?\

Be a good little doggy, and try, and you might have to try very hard, find someone on your own I.Q. level to play with. Otherwise, you will never find a home.

If there were a standard for common grammar yet, then there would be a whole lot of idiots, like yourself, out of a job with theorizing about it.
And for formal grammars, to peer review results is simply a matter of testing the results by known processors, which, anyone with a brain can do for geometry, which leaves you out. Peer groups, and peer reviewing is not the same. Every group recognizes a world wide standard for mathematics.
Portions of my work have been available since Windows 75 in share ware. No one has ever pointed out a mistake, simply because the programs available to check the results are world wide.
The shear number of downloads of my work over the years, without one mistake ever being pointed out, speaks for itself. And this does not count the number of times it has be copied and pass around.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:01 pm

Perspective wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:14 pm I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but I’m wondering if those of you who engage in logical fallacies realize it. The most common one I’ve seen is ad hominem attack. Don’t people realize when they engage in it, that it makes them look less logical?

Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring…

…So, look at what you wrote. It is not like what Plato stated, nor what is demonstrated by the computer. Your own words are a cluster fuck...

So, apparently your answer is, “No,” You have no clue when you engage in logical fallacies.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 1:31 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:01 pm

Perspective wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:14 pm I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but I’m wondering if those of you who engage in logical fallacies realize it. The most common one I’ve seen is ad hominem attack. Don’t people realize when they engage in it, that it makes them look less logical?

Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring
2. Strawman - creating easy argument to then refute
3. Black or White, Either-Or thinking, False dilemma
4. Hasty generalization - slippery slope/domino theory, non-sequitur, false cause, post hoc
5. Red herring - distraction
6. Begging the question - loaded question
7. Special pleading/exceptions, fallacy of equivocation, stacking the deck, moving the goalposts
8. Fallacy of circular reasoning
9. Appeal to emotion, ad misericordiam
10. Appeal to authority/tradition - similar: appeal to the people “argumentum adpopulum, bandwagon, spotlight fallacy

Would you add, subtract or otherwise change any of the above?

Do you think people who engage in logical fallacies are lacking in logical or emotional intelligence? (Or is that begging the question? )

I see you are a fan of Aristotle the person who actually did poison the well, so to speak.
Draw it with your own hand, as Plato recommended. A simple line segment, the simplest thing possible, a binary construct. Every thing in all of reality is defined as a relative difference within correlatives, i.e., stop, go, stop. Just like the computer, it can process all information based on two concepts, stop and go.
So, look at what you wrote. It is not like what Plato stated, nor what is demonstrated by the computer. Your own words are a cluster fuck.

Aristotle did not understand Plato well enough to even follow his demonstrations.

So, When you entered formal classrooms, as I did. Did you notice something was wrong with education? Is it possible that in Grammar, the mind processes information one way, In arithmetic another, etc., that your schools, our schools was teaching us that a mind processes information in multitudes of ways, and all you had to do is pull one out of your ass?

If you start with two, and only two states to name, how many errors are possible?
When you treat a relative as if it were correlative, or a correlative as if it is a relative, i.e. you cannot tell the difference between a noun and verb nor how to add and subtract them.
Geometry is the simplest binary grammar possible, as it is established on an arithmetic correspondence. Can you even follow that? We have a whole history of people, when trying it, fly off into the bannaosphere of bull shit. Can you stay grounded? If you cannot follow the simplest possible written grammar, you can in no wise comprehend any more complicated.
If you cannot agree with yourself using geometry, agree with the conventions of your own hand, you can never become a civilized human being. There is no civilization on the earth today. Becoming is not being.

I know 'the one' who started this thread knew it, (purposefully?), made a grammatical error in the the thread title, and who is also wondering if those who engage in logical fallacies realize it, but I wonder if "phil8659" realizes just how many grammatical errors it makes within this forum?

Also, for one who believes that if it is not the smartest person ever, then it would be in the top two, it makes me wonder how and why it, still, has not yet realized why it is not being heard, and understood, here.

My first thought was on the spectrum. I know some people are brilliant in some ways & in other ways (ie interpersonal), less intelligent.

If this was “Grammar Forum,” it would be understandable to be so anal about it. I wish some such passion would be applied to logical fallacies. Why do you think fallacies like ad hominem attack are so often used on this forum? Mostly men seem to frequent here - & maybe it’s a guy thing? Or maybe just lazy logic?

Perspective wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 2:23 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:01 pm

Perspective wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:14 pm I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but I’m wondering if those of you who engage in logical fallacies realize it. The most common one I’ve seen is ad hominem attack. Don’t people realize when they engage in it, that it makes them look less logical?

Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring…

…So, look at what you wrote. It is not like what Plato stated, nor what is demonstrated by the computer. Your own words are a cluster fuck...

So, apparently your answer is, “No,” You have no clue when you engage in logical fallacies.

You might get yourself a tutor to help you actually read what I wrote.

When I was at university, when everyone was given a book to read, to be tested on, I almost always got a perfect score. You do not even seem to be able to read a single page. I said almost because I actually did miss one question during the entire semester. A name.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 2:13 am Age is always trying to prove to the world of how much of an idiot he is.

If 'this' is what you believe is true, then 'this' is what you will then 'see', here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 2:13 am That is his way of getting attention like a little doggy. Never can add anything of substance to a thread, only his barking for attention. You might actually want to read works on Grammar, Common Grammar is not like arithmetic, or algebra, etc., it is Common Grammar, informal grammar and only assholes like you nit pick non essentials because you are too stupid to add anything of substance.
So, keep barking doggy, someone will play with you eventually.

Yet, here it is, 'you' writing, and 'responding'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 2:13 am Point to any Common Grammar Book on the planet, which one of them has ever been claimed to be a standard or formal by any educational system, or in your words, passed a peer review?\

Be a good little doggy, and try, and you might have to try very hard, find someone on your own I.Q. level to play with. Otherwise, you will never find a home.

Have 'you forgotten' that is it is 'you', here, who claims to know some 'correct grammar'?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 2:13 am If there were a standard for common grammar yet, then there would be a whole lot of idiots, like yourself, out of a job with theorizing about it.
And for formal grammars, to peer review results is simply a matter of testing the results by known processors, which, anyone with a brain can do for geometry, which leaves you out.

Just out of curiosity why do you not just express one of 'your claims', and then show 'through geometry' and/or any other means, how 'your claim' is absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct?

Would it not save you a whole of 'time', 'effort', and 're-repeating' if you just provided one example, only, of how 'your claims', when expressed in some 'grammatical way', can be proved to be absolutely true, through 'geometry'.

By just providing one example, only, then 'we' can check and test all of your 'other claims'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 2:13 am Peer groups, and peer reviewing is not the same. Every group recognizes a world wide standard for mathematics.
Portions of my work have been available since Windows 75 in share ware.

And, still, not a human being has been able to understand 'your works'.

And, claiming that 'computers' can and/or do, without providing any actual examples nor proofs just makes you sound 'more insane'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 2:13 am No one has ever pointed out a mistake, simply because the programs available to check the results are world wide.

The reason no one has 'published' what you call 'your published works' is because no one understands it.

Now, maybe 'you' are years way ahead of all 'us', human beings, here, in the days when this is being written, but 'you', still, not yet understanding the very reason/s why 'we', still, do not yet understand 'your words' nor 'your works' is not really putting 'you' as one of the more 'smarter' ones, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 2:13 am The shear number of downloads of my work over the years, without one mistake ever being pointed out, speaks for itself.

Again, no one has been able to understand what you are even 'trying to' achieve with 'your work', here, let alone understand what is even being written and claimed, in it.

The reason no one has been able to point out a 'mistake' in 'your work' is because, to 'us', 'your whole work' is just one big and very long mistake.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 2:13 am And this does not count the number of times it has be copied and pass around.

Okay.

Lamo Age the Anti-Personnel Mime.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 2:29 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 1:31 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:01 pm

I see you are a fan of Aristotle the person who actually did poison the well, so to speak.
Draw it with your own hand, as Plato recommended. A simple line segment, the simplest thing possible, a binary construct. Every thing in all of reality is defined as a relative difference within correlatives, i.e., stop, go, stop. Just like the computer, it can process all information based on two concepts, stop and go.
So, look at what you wrote. It is not like what Plato stated, nor what is demonstrated by the computer. Your own words are a cluster fuck.

Aristotle did not understand Plato well enough to even follow his demonstrations.

So, When you entered formal classrooms, as I did. Did you notice something was wrong with education? Is it possible that in Grammar, the mind processes information one way, In arithmetic another, etc., that your schools, our schools was teaching us that a mind processes information in multitudes of ways, and all you had to do is pull one out of your ass?

If you start with two, and only two states to name, how many errors are possible?
When you treat a relative as if it were correlative, or a correlative as if it is a relative, i.e. you cannot tell the difference between a noun and verb nor how to add and subtract them.
Geometry is the simplest binary grammar possible, as it is established on an arithmetic correspondence. Can you even follow that? We have a whole history of people, when trying it, fly off into the bannaosphere of bull shit. Can you stay grounded? If you cannot follow the simplest possible written grammar, you can in no wise comprehend any more complicated.
If you cannot agree with yourself using geometry, agree with the conventions of your own hand, you can never become a civilized human being. There is no civilization on the earth today. Becoming is not being.

I know 'the one' who started this thread knew it, (purposefully?), made a grammatical error in the the thread title, and who is also wondering if those who engage in logical fallacies realize it, but I wonder if "phil8659" realizes just how many grammatical errors it makes within this forum?

Also, for one who believes that if it is not the smartest person ever, then it would be in the top two, it makes me wonder how and why it, still, has not yet realized why it is not being heard, and understood, here.

My first thought was on the spectrum. I know some people are brilliant in some ways & in other ways (ie interpersonal), less intelligent.

If this was “Grammar Forum,” it would be understandable to be so anal about it.

Should not a 'philosophy forum' be so so-called 'anal', to you?

Perspective wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 2:29 am I wish some such passion would be applied to logical fallacies.

If you would like 'passion', or 'being anal', in regards to 'logical fallacies', then let 'us' continue.

Were you yet aware that 'the definitions' for the 'logical fallacies' above are not 'the definitions' that others have, and use?

Which, by the way, is why some human beings will just say things like, 'That is not a logical fallacy', while another is saying some thing like, 'Yes it is a logical fallacy'.

As always, until the 'actual definitions' for 'the words' being used in 'a discussion' are agreed upon and accepted, before the actual discussion takes place, then confusion and misunderstandings will prevail.

But, in order to find out, and agree upon, and accept the 'actual definitions', for 'the words', to be used within a discussion, some people class and consider 'this' as being 'too anal'. And, so the confusions and misunderstanding, in Life, just continue on.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 2:29 am Why do you think fallacies like ad hominem attack are so often used on this forum?

Why 'ad hominem attack', (when defined as, (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. )happen and occur so often in this forum is because the one doing 'the attacking' just can not 'attack' 'the words' being expressed themselves. Some people, here, in this forum, often use 'ad hominem attacks' in this forum because it is how they learned to feel better about 'themselves", hitherto when this is being written.

However, in saying 'this' I am not yet sure of what you mean by, 'ad hominem attack' when it means, “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring. So, the reason why I say 'ad hominem attacks' are so often used on this forum might not align at all with your own definition for the term and phrase, 'ad hominem attack'.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 2:29 am Mostly men seem to frequent here - & maybe it’s a guy thing? Or maybe just lazy logic?

If you stay here long enough, or look 'deep enough', here, you will see that there are some 'women', here, who partake in 'ad hominem attacks', and quite frequently also. But, again, this is with the definition of 'ad hominem attack' that I presented, here.

Will you elaborate on and/or explain further 'the definition', which you presented, here?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 4:36 am Lamo Age the Anti-Personnel Mime.

'This' can be added to the very, very many different names and labels that have been 'put on' 'me', here.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am Should not a 'philosophy forum' be so so-called 'anal', to you?

First, I appreciate that you are responding with reason. Thank you.

What I mean by “anal” is obsessing over something with little relevance and getting mad at others when they don’t similarly obsess.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am Were you yet aware that 'the definitions' for the 'logical fallacies' above are not 'the definitions' that others have, and use?

Which, by the way, is why some human beings will just say things like, 'That is not a logical fallacy', while another is saying some thing like, 'Yes it is a logical fallacy'.

As always, until the 'actual definitions' for 'the words' being used in 'a discussion' are agreed upon and accepted, before the actual discussion takes place, then confusion and misunderstandings will prevail.

But, in order to find out, and agree upon, and accept the 'actual definitions', for 'the words', to be used within a discussion, some people class and consider 'this' as being 'too anal'. And, so the confusions and misunderstanding, in Life, just continue on.

That’s why I brought it up. I want to get other perspectives and to hopefully understand better. Also, I believe at least some attention and respect to logic is important to reasonable discussions. This could improve the experience of this forum.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am Why 'ad hominem attack', (when defined as, (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. )happen and occur so often in this forum is because the one doing 'the attacking' just can not 'attack' 'the words' being expressed themselves. Some people, here, in this forum, often use 'ad hominem attacks' in this forum because it is how they learned to feel better about 'themselves", hitherto when this is being written.

However, in saying 'this' I am not yet sure of what you mean by, 'ad hominem attack' when it means, “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring. So, the reason why I say 'ad hominem attacks' are so often used on this forum might not align at all with your own definition for the term and phrase, 'ad hominem attack'.

Yes, I agree with that definition. I added poisoning the well because calling someone names is trying to frame the person (& hoping to influence the argument) in a bad way.

If I understand you correctly, you think people use ad hominem attacks to feel better, by putting others down. That makes sense. It implies they live with an insecure sense of self & get easily upset & defensive so they go on the offense.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am If you stay here long enough, or look 'deep enough', here, you will see that there are some 'women', here, who partake in 'ad hominem attacks', and quite frequently also. But, again, this is with the definition of 'ad hominem attack' that I presented, here.

I believe it & have seen plenty of women engage in ad hominem attacks too. The reason I suggested it may be a guy thing is I’ve noticed men like to put each other down in friendly & challenging ways more than women do - generally.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 amWill you elaborate on and/or explain further 'the definition', which you presented, here?

Sure, but which definition? Ad hominem attack? I mostly define it as calling names or otherwise putting someone down rather than addressing words they express & why they disagree. Part of a definition includes, “… the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion.” This is why I related it to red herring.

What do you think is a good way to respond to ad hominem attacks?
I temporarily blocked Phil because I don’t want to subject myself to more ad hominem attacks. Should I have done that? Life is short - who knows how much time we have? Why waste precious time on those who take their misery out on others to feel better? I could be mistaken.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am Should not a 'philosophy forum' be so so-called 'anal', to you?

First, I appreciate that you are responding with reason. Thank you.

What I mean by “anal” is obsessing over something with little relevance and getting mad at others when they don’t similarly obsess.

1. What you personally consider as 'with little relevance' may not be at all, when all is 'looked into' and 'discussed'.

2. Why did you even begin to assume that 'I' was mad with any of 'you' people, here, let alone then going on to believe that your own made up assumption was actually true and right?

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am Were you yet aware that 'the definitions' for the 'logical fallacies' above are not 'the definitions' that others have, and use?

Which, by the way, is why some human beings will just say things like, 'That is not a logical fallacy', while another is saying some thing like, 'Yes it is a logical fallacy'.

As always, until the 'actual definitions' for 'the words' being used in 'a discussion' are agreed upon and accepted, before the actual discussion takes place, then confusion and misunderstandings will prevail.

But, in order to find out, and agree upon, and accept the 'actual definitions', for 'the words', to be used within a discussion, some people class and consider 'this' as being 'too anal'. And, so the confusions and misunderstanding, in Life, just continue on.

That’s why I brought it up. I want to get other perspectives and to hopefully understand better.

But, this contradicts you also claiming that 'another's perspective' is 'so anal' and/or 'with little relevance'.

Again, what you find so-called 'anal' and/or 'with little relevance' another may not, and vice-versa, what another finds so-called 'anal' and/or 'with little relevance' you may not.

It is like unless 'the other' has the exact same 'perspective' as another individual, people are not Truly happy with one another.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm Also, I believe at least some attention and respect to logic is important to reasonable discussions. This could improve the experience of this forum.

I would suggest that if people were to just be Truly Honest and open, here, then through fully 'logically reasoned' discussions, only, then people would also uncover and work out the solution in how to find the actual irrefutable answers to all of what I call and label 'the meaningful questions, in Life', as well. Which are sometimes referred to as the 'age old', or 'philosophical' questions in Life.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am Why 'ad hominem attack', (when defined as, (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. )happen and occur so often in this forum is because the one doing 'the attacking' just can not 'attack' 'the words' being expressed themselves. Some people, here, in this forum, often use 'ad hominem attacks' in this forum because it is how they learned to feel better about 'themselves", hitherto when this is being written.

However, in saying 'this' I am not yet sure of what you mean by, 'ad hominem attack' when it means, “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring. So, the reason why I say 'ad hominem attacks' are so often used on this forum might not align at all with your own definition for the term and phrase, 'ad hominem attack'.

Yes, I agree with that definition. I added poisoning the well because calling someone names is trying to frame the person (& hoping to influence the argument) in a bad way.

Okay, that makes sense to me and thank you for clarifying.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm If I understand you correctly, you think people use ad hominem attacks to feel better, by putting others down. That makes sense. It implies they live with an insecure sense of self & get easily upset & defensive so they go on the offense.

Yes you understood me correctly, here, but just to be clear this is one reason, and not the only reason.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 am If you stay here long enough, or look 'deep enough', here, you will see that there are some 'women', here, who partake in 'ad hominem attacks', and quite frequently also. But, again, this is with the definition of 'ad hominem attack' that I presented, here.

I believe it & have seen plenty of women engage in ad hominem attacks too. The reason I suggested it may be a guy thing is I’ve noticed men like to put each other down in friendly & challenging ways more than women do - generally.

'Best friends' or 'mates', as sometimes closer friends are called, may well be able to 'put each other, so-called' down, in a 'friendly or challenging' way, but I am pretty sure that only on the very, very rarest of occasions, here, in this philosophy forum people put each other so-called 'down' in a 'friendly', or in a 'challenging', way.

Going 'out' or 'having' discussions with 'your best friends, buddies, and/or mates', and having 'friendly banter' is one thing, but 'we' are in a 'philosophy forum' where the only thing is any real importance, at all, is, absolutely, each and every word, as each and every word, and even lette can mean, and thus make, a so-called 'world of difference'.

To me anyway, if absolutely any one even thinks about, let alone wants to 'out another down', or even 'tries to' 'out another down' in my case, then, really, a 'philosophy forum' is not the Right place for them.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 6:24 amWill you elaborate on and/or explain further 'the definition', which you presented, here?

Sure, but which definition? Ad hominem attack? I mostly define it as calling names or otherwise putting someone down rather than addressing words they express & why they disagree. Part of a definition includes, “… the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion.” This is why I related it to red herring.

Okay, and again thanks for clarifying, I agree with and accept 'this definitions', however, why would any one want to come to a 'philosophy forum' to 'debate' and/or 'genuinely debate'?

To me, a philosophy forum is certainly not 'the place' for 'debating'. And, considering the fact that just about every other forum or so-called 'social media' places are just about 'full of debates and/or debating', would it not be better if there were just one place left, which was for the sole purpose of just having actual 'peaceful, and open and honest, discussions, where through 'logical reasoning' alone the whole purpose was to discover and find what the actual answers in Life to the Truly meaningful 'age old' philosophical questions are, exactly, could actually take place, instead?

To me 'debating' involves just 'picking a side', or just 'already having a position', which one then tries their bardes to 'fight for'. And, obviously if one already has, and/or is holding, 'a position', already, that not absolutely every one could agree with, and accept, then 'that position' is not even worth repeating, let alone worth 'fighting for'. And, obviously, if some one wants to 'fight' for 'a view' or 'a position', then they do not want a Truly peaceful discussion anyway.

But, if some one does know of 'a view' in which every one could agree with, and accept, then through just a Truly open and honest 'logically reasoned', peaceful discussion, then 'that view' could be shared, and agreed with and accepted by absolutely every one. However, and of course, every one in 'the discussion' would first need to be completely open, and thus not already be of pre-conceived ideas, prejudices, nor of assumptions and beliefs. Each and every would also obviously be of wanting to learn and understand more, and of anew.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm What do you think is a good way to respond to ad hominem attacks?

To just never ever allow the attempted attacks to effect 'you' emotionally in any way whatsoever.

To actually 'respond to' 'the attack' will usually have no positive effect at all, a yway, as any one who even wants to and/does make an 'ad hominen attack' has not yet 'grown up' and/or 'matured' enough to 'take on', 'the responses', nor 'to respond' again, in any actual beneficial way anyway.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm I temporarily blocked Phil because I don’t want to subject myself to more ad hominem attacks. Should I have done that?

That is your choice alone.

'i', personally, do not block absolutely any one at all. As 'i' can only learn more and 'grow more' from 'listening to' and 'hearing' what every one has to say.

But, I do also have the ability to not be affected in any way at all emotionally by absolutely any thing that is said and written, here.

Perspective wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 7:00 pm Life is short - who knows how much time we have? Why waste precious time on those who take their misery out on others to feel better? I could be mistaken.

What 'they' say, teaches 'me' how to communicate better with all people. But, in saying this obviously no one 'has to' 'listen to', nor 'take on', what 'the other' is 'saying'. But, if one does not 'listen to' 'another', then what they are 'really saying and meaning' could never be heard, nor understood. See, a lot of the time what people are 'saying' is not what they are 'actually meaning', and it is only through 'Truly listening' what is actually being 'said, and meant' can be Truly comprehended, and understood.

Like, for example, with "phil8659" I think that deep down behind what it says and writes, here, it has actually 'found' some thing, which could be very, very insightful and enlightening. However, getting past 'that one's' grandiose persona, to find out if has actual some actual epiphany, or not, is going to take some time. Which, by the way, I can see behind every one's 'persona', here, there is an absolute brightness of insight and enlightenment, which could and would make a 'world of difference' for humanity and for the betterment of every thing, but because of every one, here, lack of being 'listened to', fully and Correctly, previously, 'we' all have troubles or issues sharing our views properly, and Correctly, 'currently'.

Perspective wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:14 pm
Do you think people who engage in logical fallacies are lacking in logical or emotional intelligence?

I guess that those who employ logical fallacies believe they are being clever. I also think that fallacies are easy to recognize, at least when pointed out, but they are utilized anyway, suggesting a lack of maturity or intelligence on the part of the fallacy user.