Whining "Ad Hominem"

[DeistPaladin]

Lucent wrote in his debate with Cinjin:

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."

[Minimalist]

In the second example, the insult, while perhaps a bit harsh,

Not harsh at all. Reality can be cruel.

[Cinjin]

Thank you DP. Your clarification is much appreciated as I have addressed his complaint of my rebuttals.

[Shell B]

This should be in our guidelines. Perhaps we need a logic clarification page or we can save that for the blog.

[fr0d0]

I did think what Cinjin was saying had no content at all and at best stated the opposite without reason given. That coupled with derisory tone and or remarks designed to inflame his opponent, where none was evidenced from Lucent.

So while I agree that ad hom may have been an innacurate accusation, dishonest or weak argumentation were certainly in play. "mocking, condescending, belittling attitude" - absolutely.

We should all strive to occupy the top three sections of the pyramid:


I think Cinjin is frustrated at this point in the debate because of his very weak reasoning in labelling himself a Deist. Not that I think reasoning should count for anything in this instance, because Cinjins belief is completely without reason, as he says. Is he a nominal Deist? I know nothing of Deism so couldn't say. Lots of people have spooky feeling that there's somting more, and soley based on that refuse to discount the supernatural. I would hope all of those people would declare themselves atheist, but I'm sure a hell of a lot consider themseves theists too.

[LastPoet]

In what step of that pyramid is fr0d0-Speak Ol'chap?

[fr0d0]

In the top 3 with 95% of posts referencing those posts Poet

[frankiej]

fr0do, you can shove your pyramid up your ass... Stop using it.

I will call someone an ass-hat when I see fit

[fr0d0]

*blushes at this uncomely outburst*

[thesummerqueen]

fr0d0, sometimes my love I think you are like Peter Pan's shadow.