---

I love this because it's true:  
"The adults they count on to provide reliable information about the world introduce them to Santa. Then his existence is affirmed by friends, books, TV and movies. It is also validated by hard evidence: the half-eaten cookies and empty milk glasses by the tree on Christmas morning. In other words, children do a great job of scientifically evaluating Santa. And adults do a great job of duping them."  
-Jacqueline Woolley, University of Texas at Austin psychology professor

Given what kids are presented with and that we live in a whole society that's attuned to reinforce the lie, not believing would be dumb until you find evidence to the contrary.

---

Blame the world, Bearsy, Blame the world

Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 6:42 am on Dec. 16, 2008

---

You're replying to my argument that it's justified to question the trust between you and your parents with "that's silly you pedant."  

It is indeed an ad hominem.  

I hate arguing about arguing though...

---

No, it is indeed, not. I, too, dislike arguing about nothing, but in the case of argumentum ad hominem I find myself doing it a lot of the time.  
One of the few things that really gets on my nerves is the misuse of the term ad hominem.  

Ad hominem is only an ad hominem when it is used to show that the speaker is WRONG.  
I told you why I I thought you are wrong, and then simply claimed that your reaction was mind boggling, that I couldn't believe that you would feel resentment, and that you seemed pedantic.  

I did not say, "you are pedantic so you are wrong" or "I have never heard such a thing, that is ludicrous, you must be wrong"

Re-read my post. I most certainly did not insult you as is described by ad homnem.  

----sometimes, it may be called an ad hominem when someone is simply called a name [like pedantic], but only if that name calling has no context.  
For instance, if you made your post and all I responded was, "you are so pedantic!" or "You are a fool!" then yes, that would be an ad hominem [though I dislike that modern language has deemed it so, as I would simply call it an insult, not an "argument against the man"].

However, since my post had context, and was stating my disbelief that you could hold such thoughts --as well as the fact that I clearly said, "Then I don't know what else to say to you" indicating that I could not continue to coherently argue with you, since there is nothing to argue about.]  
Saying:
"Ugh, shut up you are pedantic"
and  
"Well, I guess this is where the argument ends, I still can't believe that that is how you feel. Also, I agree, you do seem pedantic"

are NOT the same things.

Post edited at 8:25 am on Dec. 16, 2008 by Event Horizon

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

I made an argument and your response was at my character, not my argument.

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

---

That is what happened.

I made an argument and your response was at my character, not my argument.

---

Ok. this is not getting anywhere and is unrelated to the topic.

1. Responses that are not directed at the topic are NOT ad hominems.
If you say, "the sky is green"
and I say, "no, it isn't"
Then you reply that it is and that is that.
an Ad hominem reply would be, "No, you are an idiot, the sky is blue"

A NON ad hominem response would be, "Ok, this isn't getting anywhere. I don't really get what you are saying. You are an idiot" --note, I'm not calling you an idiot

The second reply is merely a context-less claim. It is an assessment. What I said had NOTHING to do with your post. Therefore, NOT an ad hominem. Do you study logic at all? Or do you just use cliched, substance-less responses to sound smart?

Like now. If i just flat out called you a moron --I am not [you have to be careful with using words like this, people are touchy]-- right now, there would be NO justifiable way that you could call it an Ad Hominem. It is merely an insult.

Besides. Pedantic isn't a fucking insult anyway. It means unimaginative/paying too much attention to minute details. I guess if you take it to mean ostentatious, then perhaps.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

like I said, argumentum ad hominem is an Argument against the man as used to rebuke the other's argument.

here:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

check that out.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

---

Your insults, sir, were very much in response to my arguments, particularly when you called me a pedant.

And don't say you weren't countering my argument in some attempt. "Wow. I don't know what to say..."

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

I don't appreciate this at all
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yeoiett-support-bn.html#60
Point thief.

Post edited at 3:18 pm on Dec. 16, 2008 by Bearsy

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

---

 A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
  B: "That does not logically follow."
  A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?"
  B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q."
  A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal."
  B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks."
  A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot.

---

This is the type of event that went down.
Except that your points were not wrong and mine only served to question yours.

You said, "Telling your kids about santa is lying to them, it made me resent them"
I then said, "No, telling your kids that santa exists is not the same as blatantly lying about things, etc etc"
You then said that it is, and that that is how you felt, etc etc"
So then I replied with my post: "I don't know what to say to that...do you really feel that way?...I can't believe that people actually resent their parents for telling them about santa.... bla bla bla, you seem pedantic"

THAT is not an ad hominem. If I said:
"Well, you seem pedantic, so you are probably wrong about this whole 'I resent my parents because they lied to me' thing"
That would have been an ad hominem.
Get it?

---

Your insults, sir, were very much in response to my arguments, particularly when you called me a pedant.

And don't say you weren't countering my argument in some attempt. "Wow. I don't know what to say..."

---

WHERE?!

this is the exact post

---

Well then I really don't know what to say to you...
I guess the story of Santa Claus is only suitable for children who can learn fantasy from reality.

---

Please read the link that I've posted, I know that you haven't.

---

I mean...Really?

Forgive me if I sound condescending, but I'm just blown away by this. The fact that someone could feel betrayed when finding out that Santa isn't real is just mind boggling.

You just seem, like Fauna said, pedantic.

---

1) This talks about your argument, but in no way attempts to rebuke it. All it does is to point out how strange your view seems to me. I say that it is mind boggling that you feel that way. Not that you are wrong, not that your points are invalid, but that i simply cannot understand how someone could have those views.

2) I said, "you seem...pedantic"
Not only did I not say, "you seem pedantic, so your points shouldn't be trusted" but I didn't even call you the name out-right.

Please, for the sake of any future dealings you might have with people educated in logical fallacies, do not misuse the term Ad hominem so readily.

edit

---

(This is not an ad hominem though)

I don't appreciate this at all
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yeoiett-support-bn.html#60
Point thief.

---

Post edited at 4:31 pm on Dec. 16, 2008 by Event Horizon

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

Just another person who can't admit when they are --even the slightest bit-- wrong.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

And yeah I answered it, I listed my argument first post.

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

b) You must realize that what you've said here is an opinion. The way you feel about this is fine. No one can argue the fact that you felt resentment, however you cannot justifiably tell others that resentment should be felt. In that, miss, you are wrong.

c) You couldn't even admit to the silly mistake --one which is made by many [of those who actually know what an ad hom. is!]-- about the use of Argumentum ad hominem. That was really my only quarrel with you. The fact that you have an opposing view on the subject of the ethics of Santa Claus, though confusing, is simply that; an opposing view.

Post edited at 11:05 am on Dec. 17, 2008 by Event Horizon

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

You are hereby banned from my topics until further notice.

---

Very well.
I won't be missing much, will I.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov