|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 19, 2024 13:06:30 GMT
The expression ad hominem is Latin and literally means "to the man" or "concerning the man" (Latin has no definite article, so "to a man" or "concerning a man" are also possible). The Latin expression argumentum ad hominem literally means an argument concerning the man. In widest use it means pointing out the flaws a man has. That is considered a "logical fallacy" when the personal flaws of some speaker are used against the policy he recommends, as if all the people who would recommend that policy have similar flaws.
Pointing out the flaws a person has is quite generally considered impolite depending on the setting more or less. That in itself is not the logical fallacy. It can be necessary in various specific circumstances to address personal flaws. It is only a logical fallacy when it is expected to defeat a policy stance entirely as if all the people with that stance had the same flaws.
An unusually large number of people on these virtually anonymous discussion boards do not have sufficient social development to distinguish whether an ad hominem is a logical fallacy or merely impolite.
Moving on though, it might appear in recent news that many are judging both political parties by rather obscure examples of people claiming to represent those parties. For example when people have misgivings about the behavior of Donald Trump, those misgivings might be applied, rather unfairly, to all Republicans or perhaps even all conservatives or religious people.
That would be a logical fallacy. It can appear that people who believe Trump should be found innocent in his numerous trials and blunders do so because they believe that would impugn their own beliefs whether Republican, conservative or religious. Some of them anyway assume the argument "concerning the man" must apply to his political stance generally. That logical fallacy is quite pervasive.
Now it might be noted that large numbers of Republicans stand by Trump, thus more strongly suggesting Republicans are the problem. I believe that is a mistake. I sense it is rather a means to settle the question whether Trump should represent Republicans, since that has been made a serious question of the day. It is all about voting on the question, not necessarily in Trump's favor.
Should Trump be defeated, I would maintain that it is only Trump's defeat and not that of conservative or religious people.
|
|
|
|
Post by ofunknownorigins on Apr 19, 2024 13:18:53 GMT
You’re a twat, which is why all your arguments suck ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 19, 2024 13:27:57 GMT
You’re a twat, which is why all your arguments suck ass. You represent absolutely no one of any intelligence. Check those credentials again.
Yes there are stupid people, and no I am not one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 19, 2024 13:33:14 GMT
"An unusually large number of people on these virtually anonymous discussion boards do not have sufficient social development to distinguish whether an ad hominem is a logical fallacy or merely impolite."
You use ad homs all the time, when you don't have an argument for your position (which is pretty often) you resort to childish insults instead ("retarded atheist" is your usual rebutal), so I dunno why you're criticizing other people for using them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 19, 2024 13:36:27 GMT
"An unusually large number of people on these virtually anonymous discussion boards do not have sufficient social development to distinguish whether an ad hominem is a logical fallacy or merely impolite." You use ad homs all the time, when you don't have an argument for your position (which is pretty often) you resort to childish insults instead ("retarded atheist" is your usual rebutal), so I dunno why you're criticizing other people for using them. I don't believe you. I think you do know. |
|
|
|
Post by ofunknownorigins on Apr 19, 2024 13:57:21 GMT
You’re a twat, which is why all your arguments suck ass. You represent absolutely no one of any intelligence. Check those credentials again.
Yes there are stupid people, and no I am not one of them.
I checked my credentials and they say Olaf sucks ass constantly. Why you tongue more assholes on a daily basis than Richard Simmons has in his entire life. |
|
|
|
Post by theBROKEdontrump on Apr 19, 2024 18:44:18 GMT
Yo mama
|
|
|
|
Post by theBROKEdontrump on Apr 19, 2024 18:45:21 GMT
Now do one for post hoc
Those seem to be MAGAs bread and butter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Apr 19, 2024 18:46:56 GMT
Now do one for post hoc Those seem to be MAGAs bread and butter. Nah, no true Scotsman is the best one! |
|
|
|
Post by jimmywynn on Apr 19, 2024 19:35:30 GMT
I'm not here for no damn learnin'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Apr 19, 2024 20:20:09 GMT
The expression ad hominem is Latin and literally means "to the man" or "concerning the man" (Latin has no definite article, so "to a man" or "concerning a man" are also possible). The Latin expression argumentum ad hominem literally means an argument concerning the man. In widest use it means pointing out the flaws a man has. That is considered a "logical fallacy" when the personal flaws of some speaker are used against the policy he recommends, as if all the people who would recommend that policy have similar flaws. Pointing out the flaws a person has is quite generally considered impolite depending on the setting more or less. That in itself is not the logical fallacy. It can be necessary in various specific circumstances to address personal flaws. It is only a logical fallacy when it is expected to defeat a policy stance entirely as if all the people with that stance had the same flaws. An unusually large number of people on these virtually anonymous discussion boards do not have sufficient social development to distinguish whether an ad hominem is a logical fallacy or merely impolite. Moving on though, it might appear in recent news that many are judging both political parties by rather obscure examples of people claiming to represent those parties. For example when people have misgivings about the behavior of Donald Trump, those misgivings might be applied, rather unfairly, to all Republicans or perhaps even all conservatives or religious people. That would be a logical fallacy. It can appear that people who believe Trump should be found innocent in his numerous trials and blunders do so because they believe that would impugn their own beliefs whether Republican, conservative or religious. Some of them anyway assume the argument "concerning the man" must apply to his political stance generally. That logical fallacy is quite pervasive. Now it might be noted that large numbers of Republicans stand by Trump, thus more strongly suggesting Republicans are the problem. I believe that is a mistake. I sense it is rather a means to settle the question whether Trump should represent Republicans, since that has been made a serious question of the day. It is all about voting on the question, not necessarily in Trump's favor. Should Trump be defeated, I would maintain that it is only Trump's defeat and not that of conservative or religious people. You forget some aspect. Arguing against voting for Trump because he screws porn stars could be an ad hominem argument because it could be irrelevant to his abilities. Arguing the Republican party is fucked because it cheerily is represented by crazies Boebert, Kennedy, Hawley, or that they are taking orders from Trump in Congress is not ad hominem because it directly affects the partys Congress performance. |
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 19, 2024 21:19:17 GMT
The expression ad hominem is Latin and literally means "to the man" or "concerning the man" (Latin has no definite article, so "to a man" or "concerning a man" are also possible). The Latin expression argumentum ad hominem literally means an argument concerning the man. In widest use it means pointing out the flaws a man has. That is considered a "logical fallacy" when the personal flaws of some speaker are used against the policy he recommends, as if all the people who would recommend that policy have similar flaws. Pointing out the flaws a person has is quite generally considered impolite depending on the setting more or less. That in itself is not the logical fallacy. It can be necessary in various specific circumstances to address personal flaws. It is only a logical fallacy when it is expected to defeat a policy stance entirely as if all the people with that stance had the same flaws. An unusually large number of people on these virtually anonymous discussion boards do not have sufficient social development to distinguish whether an ad hominem is a logical fallacy or merely impolite. Moving on though, it might appear in recent news that many are judging both political parties by rather obscure examples of people claiming to represent those parties. For example when people have misgivings about the behavior of Donald Trump, those misgivings might be applied, rather unfairly, to all Republicans or perhaps even all conservatives or religious people. That would be a logical fallacy. It can appear that people who believe Trump should be found innocent in his numerous trials and blunders do so because they believe that would impugn their own beliefs whether Republican, conservative or religious. Some of them anyway assume the argument "concerning the man" must apply to his political stance generally. That logical fallacy is quite pervasive. Now it might be noted that large numbers of Republicans stand by Trump, thus more strongly suggesting Republicans are the problem. I believe that is a mistake. I sense it is rather a means to settle the question whether Trump should represent Republicans, since that has been made a serious question of the day. It is all about voting on the question, not necessarily in Trump's favor. Should Trump be defeated, I would maintain that it is only Trump's defeat and not that of conservative or religious people. You forget some aspect. Arguing against voting for Trump because he screws porn stars could be an ad hominem argument because it could be irrelevant to his abilities. {1}Arguing the Republican party is fucked because it cheerily is represented by crazies Boebert, Kennedy, Hawley, or that they are taking orders from Trump in Congress is not ad hominem because it directly affects the partys Congress performance. {2}{1} That's what I say. {2} I didn't say that exactly yet, but you are correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 19, 2024 21:23:28 GMT
You represent absolutely no one of any intelligence. Check those credentials again.
Yes there are stupid people, and no I am not one of them.
I checked my credentials and they say Olaf sucks ass constantly. Why you tongue more assholes on a daily basis than Richard Simmons has in his entire life. I have a great idea. You go find a pig pen and go wallow. No, I did not steal any of your boyfriends. I don't do any of that. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Apr 19, 2024 21:26:07 GMT
TLDR
Most dictionaries can explain it in one sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 19, 2024 21:45:12 GMT
Now do one for post hoc Those seem to be MAGAs bread and butter. That's way too much fun for one week. Let it rip anyway. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. Ex post facto is a type of unconstitutional law. |
|
