-- Posted by schoon at 11:49 am on Dec. 15, 2006 I severely dislike it when our arguments here at livewire (and in the intellectual forums in particular) degrade down to the following: Person A: You're an idiot Person B: I'm smarter than you! This is called arguing ad hominim, or attacking the person instead of their argument. It is a logic fallacy when debating an issue, and is only a sign of frustration. I think that we intellectuals especially should try to not bicker where we can debate civilly. If you are posting just for the points and don't have a valid argument, that's what the general discussion is for, but if you do have a point, don't insult your opponent's person just to make that point. It shows poorly on yourself and is a testament to your maturity, or lack thereof. And i entirely expect someone to argue my point ad hominim. -- Posted by Karaden at 12:02 pm on Dec. 15, 2006 Hmm... I actually agree with you full-heartedly though I do think that at times I may be tempted to argue ad hominim... Though usually I don´t debate in here. Thanks for bringing my attention to it. -- Posted by obvious child at 12:48 pm on Dec. 15, 2006 ad hominim is a bad form of argumentation if it is the fundemental part of a argument. It's also bad form in formal debates as well. However, many of us simply use it to show someone just how stupid they are after they have been throughly crushed. It does have its uses aganist specifically stupid people though. -- Posted by medjai at 12:55 pm on Dec. 15, 2006 It is not ad hominem unless the insult is also the premise to the refutation of the other's argument. In other words, if I'm saying that you're wrong because you're a douche (which I am), that's ad hominem. -- Posted by old american century at 2:24 pm on Dec. 15, 2006 Quote: from schoon at 11:49 am on Dec. 15, 2006 This is called arguing ad hominim, or attacking the person instead of their argument. There are a few different types of ad hominem fallacies.  You are talking about personal attack ad hominem (insulting).  There is also inconsistency ad hominem (they said this but now say this) and circumstantial ad hominem (they say this because they are this). The ad hominem fallacy, generally speaking, is when somebody takes traits from the individual making a claim and applies them to the claim itself. -- Posted by schoon at 2:39 pm on Dec. 15, 2006 Oh, thank you. I'll admit when i didnt know something. I still think the instance i referred to is a problem, but i also see instances of the other two types in the forums as well. Thanks for the heads up.   -- Posted by medjai at 12:07 pm on Dec. 16, 2006 Quote: from old american century at 2:24 pm on Dec. 15, 2006 Quote: from schoon at 11:49 am on Dec. 15, 2006 This is called arguing ad hominim, or attacking the person instead of their argument. There are a few different types of ad hominem fallacies.  You are talking about personal attack ad hominem (insulting).  There is also inconsistency ad hominem (they said this but now say this) and circumstantial ad hominem (they say this because they are this). The ad hominem fallacy, generally speaking, is when somebody takes traits from the individual making a claim and applies them to the claim itself. Thief. -- Posted by holysaiyan1 at 3:22 pm on Dec. 17, 2006 I have always come from the mindset that if the person uses an ad hominem attack against my position, they lose by default.  They may not agree, and other people who contribute to the debate may not agree, but that isn't important.   Internet forums are a breeding ground for ad hominem attacks, used by ignorant people in place of actual arguments.  It's even worse when the majority population holds one view, and someone speaks out against that majority view.  I haven't seen much of such a thing on LiveWire, but sites like Digg and Slashdot are rife with such things. My opinion regarding the use of ad hominem attacks and disqualification extends to the use of catchphrases and what I term "bumper sticker analysis".  If your opinion involves a trite catchphrase made popular by or through the mass media, chances are that you haven't bothered to think about it for yourself, and you're just repeating what you heard.  Ignorance is inexcusable in these days of the Internet. -- Posted by old american century at 4:32 pm on Dec. 17, 2006 I disagree with you holysaiyan1. Fallacies in an argument shouldn't mean that a person "loses" the debate, it just renders their point invalid, but that doesn't mean that any of what else they say isn't true (and to discredit their entire argument for a few fallacies is committing an ad hominem in itself).  Besides, a lot of arguments and debates aren't about winning or losing anyways.  It's usually only logically exchanging ideas, and because most arguments are inductive anyways, no matter how much logic your argument punches, it's still understandable for others to disagree.  And even if you get them to agree with you in the end, it likely doesn't accomplish much (so I don't consider it a "win"). But while I disagree, it doesn't necessarily make your beliefs invalid, so this post can be disregarded. -- Posted by holysaiyan1 at 10:05 pm on Dec. 17, 2006 The problem is, though, too many people think that calling someone a name serves the same purpose as debating, and it's not.   I've been in political debates with my friends where all three people involved held different views, and all three people came away with a better understanding of the other people's views and beliefs.  I've also been in debates where the discussion devolved into a name-calling session, and that accomplishes nothing but raising the carbon dioxide level in the room. I suppose that personally, I tune out when names begin to be called, because apparently, they had nothing better to say. Unfortunately, most people aren't interested in exchanging ideas.  They want to look good in their own eyes, and the eyes of others.  Too many people mistake the use of logical fallacies for good arguing skills, and often it's a willful mistake.   That said, I still listen to people who make logical fallacies, but I'm less likely to take anything away from what they said. -- Posted by Blackadder at 6:41 am on Dec. 18, 2006 Personal attacks are only "ad hominiem" if they are irrelvent; if on the other hand, the "personal attack" is justified then it is a perfectly legitimate point to make:- QED: Boss "don't worry guys, I can asure you that nobody will be losing their jobs" Employee1: -- "we shouldn't belive him, he once ran over a rabbit and stole penny sweets as a kid." Employee2: --"we shouldn't belive him, last year he promised the exact same thing and 30 people ended losing their jobs" Now Kiddies, I'm sure you're all capable of working out which personal attack is both relevant and justifiable. **N.B this may have been said before, If it has, then it shows I couldn't be fucked to read, though Ironically, fucked to type.   -- Posted by obvious child at 2:33 pm on Dec. 18, 2006 Another example: Bush is a bad president with money and management because he's a incompetent idiot. Bush is a bad president with money and management because he ran every one of the several companies into the ground as CEO. -- Posted by Wilder at 5:24 pm on Dec. 19, 2006 Quote: from Blackadder at 9:41 am on Dec. 18, 2006 Personal attacks are only "ad hominiem" if they are irrelvent; if on the other hand, the "personal attack" is justified then it is a perfectly legitimate point to make:- QED: Boss "don't worry guys, I can asure you that nobody will be losing their jobs" Employee1: -- "we shouldn't belive him, he once ran over a rabbit and stole penny sweets as a kid." Employee2: --"we shouldn't belive him, last year he promised the exact same thing and 30 people ended losing their jobs" Now Kiddies, I'm sure you're all capable of working out which personal attack is both relevant and justifiable.   **N.B this may have been said before, If it has, then it shows I couldn't be fucked to read, though Ironically, fucked to type.   That's find and good for belief on the street, but in a debate that doesn't mean shit. "He did this before, so he must be doing the exact same thing again" isn't exactly the kind of axiom that you want to build an argument upon. -- Posted by Cumulonimbus at 6:43 pm on Dec. 19, 2006 Quote: from medjai at 3:07 pm on Dec. 16, 2006 Quote: from old american century at 2:24 pm on Dec. 15, 2006 Quote: from schoon at 11:49 am on Dec. 15, 2006 This is called arguing ad hominim, or attacking the person instead of their argument.    There are a few different types of ad hominem fallacies.  You are talking about personal attack ad hominem (insulting).  There is also inconsistency ad hominem (they said this but now say this) and circumstantial ad hominem (they say this because they are this).    The ad hominem fallacy, generally speaking, is when somebody takes traits from the individual making a claim and applies them to the claim itself. Thief. No, U! -- Posted by Blackadder at 5:09 am on Dec. 20, 2006 Quote: from Wilder at 1:24 am on Dec. 20, 2006 Quote: from Blackadder at 9:41 am on Dec. 18, 2006 Personal attacks are only "ad hominiem" if they are irrelvent; if on the other hand, the "personal attack" is justified then it is a perfectly legitimate point to make:-    QED:    Boss "don't worry guys, I can asure you that nobody will be losing their jobs"    Employee1: -- "we shouldn't belive him, he once ran over a rabbit and stole penny sweets as a kid."    Employee2: --"we shouldn't belive him, last year he promised the exact same thing and 30 people ended losing their jobs"    Now Kiddies, I'm sure you're all capable of working out which personal attack is both relevant and justifiable.        **N.B this may have been said before, If it has, then it shows I couldn't be fucked to read, though Ironically, fucked to type.   That's find and good for belief on the street, but in a debate that doesn't mean shit. "He did this before, so he must be doing the exact same thing again" isn't exactly the kind of axiom that you want to build an argument upon. "The Jews are a great bunch of people because...." "Hitler?! what on earth has happened to you?" ^ no, I think It can be quite appropriate; on saying that however, its only really works when both/all parties are accountable, and not anonomyous.