Lucent wrote in his debate with Cinjin:
Ad Hominem is probably the most misunderstood of the logical fallacies. It's classification as a logical fallacy is sometimes taken to mean that you have to play nice.
Not every insult is an ad hominem. Not every mean comment is an ad hominem. Not every bit of mockery is an appeal to ridicule.
It becomes an ad hominem when insults are used in place of an argument. It's where you attack the person and not the argument.
Ad hominem: "Oh yeah, well, you're stupid, so there"
Not ad hominem: "In your argument, you missed X, Y, and Z and here's A, B, and C to show that you're wrong, you blithering idiot."
In the second example, the insult, while perhaps a bit harsh, is not an indicator of fallacious reasoning. The insult is in addition to the argument, as a by the way, not a replacement for an argument.
There are also cases where, if the argument presented relies on the credibility of the speaker, questioning the credibility of the speaker is legitimate.
Example:
"Here's my personal testimony"
"But you were caught in a lie in the last debate, so as a liar, your testimony means nothing without evidence."
Quote:Enough is enough with the mocking, condescending, belittling attitude. Perhaps you could at least try to show some maturity here. If you want to have a debate, then let's keep it reasonable and free of ad homs.
Ad Hominem is probably the most misunderstood of the logical fallacies. It's classification as a logical fallacy is sometimes taken to mean that you have to play nice.
Not every insult is an ad hominem. Not every mean comment is an ad hominem. Not every bit of mockery is an appeal to ridicule.
It becomes an ad hominem when insults are used in place of an argument. It's where you attack the person and not the argument.
Ad hominem: "Oh yeah, well, you're stupid, so there"
Not ad hominem: "In your argument, you missed X, Y, and Z and here's A, B, and C to show that you're wrong, you blithering idiot."
In the second example, the insult, while perhaps a bit harsh, is not an indicator of fallacious reasoning. The insult is in addition to the argument, as a by the way, not a replacement for an argument.
There are also cases where, if the argument presented relies on the credibility of the speaker, questioning the credibility of the speaker is legitimate.
Example:
"Here's my personal testimony"
"But you were caught in a lie in the last debate, so as a liar, your testimony means nothing without evidence."
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
