|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 06/27/2004 : 19:42:11
|
|
As of late, I've seen many things being said about verlch, such as a disgrace to Christianity, worthless, and etc. Although I agree with all of these, name calling is sophmoric at best, and its even worse when its over the internet. All I ask is that the skeptics here stop practicing Ad Hominem on him, even if it is true what you say, its still Ad Hominem. Attack his ideas, show that they are wrong, even if he still thinks they are right, hopefully those who visit this forum will be guided in the right way.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2004 : 19:58:39 [Permalink]
|
Right you are, Ricky. For my part, sometimes I forget that name-calling doesn't help (although it feels like it does, sometimes).
One teensy-weensy technical point. An ad hominem argument is one which calls into question your opponent's points based upon nothing but his/her character or other personal information. For example, were I to dismiss verlch's posts with "well, you're a Christian," as if being Christian made one incapable of using logic at all, that would be an ad hominem attack. And, like with all other "logical fallacies," there are some cases in which an ad hominem is not fallacious, and instead utterly appropriate.
And I'm not singling you out, Ricky, because others here (and you know who you are) "dress up" the word "insult" by using the phrase ad hominem when they really shouldn't. "You're an idiot" isn't an argument, it's simply an insult. So along with leaving out the insults, we should all stop calling "name calling" an ad hominem attack, since it isn't (and it isn't even 'shorthand' for "insult" - count the letters). At worst, it appears pretentious, especially when one italicizes ad hominem. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2004 : 20:51:33 [Permalink]
|
I suppose looking at these attacks from this particular point of view proves that "insults" only benefit the insulted. After so long, insulting is all that's really left to say, so the insulted has done his best to bring the insulter's arguments down to nothing. That seems to be what verlch has been trying to do this whole time, right?
After the last post I read of his, I really got to the point of thinking to myself, "Wow, this is really not worth it," although the very first post I read of his I felt the same only had no other desire than to respond needlessly. Blame me for this. Now, the realization has come upon me more and more with each added post I read and occassionally respond to that not only am I wasting my time, I'm actually wasting his as well. He's never going to change his mind with what we say, however that not being the reason that we debate with him. It's pretty fun to shred his arguments to pieces, although I haven't actually done any particular shredding as of YET. I've read much of what he's had to say, as well as other SF users, only I responded to minimal of his postings. Starting now, I don't think I'll reply to any, unless they are of different, valuable context. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2004 : 02:41:23 [Permalink]
|
some books on logical fallacy break the ad hom into a couple of pieces...
ad hominem abusive (i.e. namecalling) "Your an idiot, so how would you know?"
ad hominem circumstantial (i.e. questioning the position/authority or dismissing the argument because you claim the person presenting it isn't qualified to prsent it) "Your not a doctor so what would you know about vitamin B12?)
But yeah. Simple namecalling isn't really an ad hominem argument. It's childish, sometimes fun, and often funny.... but does nothing for our credibility when we resort to schoolyard insults.
Me, I'm trying to ignore verlch. Trying..... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2004 : 05:39:03 [Permalink]
|
Normally I would agree, ricky. I try hard not to attack people personally in any forum, cyber or otherwise.
But V is a troll. His purpose here is to provoke people to be angry or defensive. So I can't feel much sympathy when people respond to him the way he wants.
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2004 : 20:23:09 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
I see you point Dave, but you also must keep in mind there is a narrow line between the two, and becomes very easy to cross. I guess I should change it to a warning against Ad Hominem.
No, the warning is needed, periodically, to remind us all that calling people "poopy-heads" or what-have-you tends to be just stooping to their level. But, those are just plain-old insults, and not ad hominem. Calling someone a rude name doesn't advance or rebut an argument, and formal argumentation is where the term ad hominem is coming from in these discussions. Rude names are simply insults.
On the other hand, saying, "verlch, you've admitted your ignorance about evolution, so what you say about it really doesn't matter," is actually an entirely appropriate ad hominem argument. Likewise, his proud display of Biblical ignorance.
What's logically fallacious is bringing someone's personal characteristics into a debate without there being an appropriate and justifiable reason for doing so. As in, "Ricky just turned 18, so he's just a wee lad, and shouldn't be trying to dole out advice to us adults." Your age has little to do with the validity of the points you raised in your OP here. That particular example ad hominem falls flat for lack of support. (Now if all of your advice was crappy, that'd be different, but would again have nothing to do with your age.)
And... what Dude said. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
