| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which is better? |
| Ad hominems towards individuals |
|
38% |
[ 5 ] |
| Ad hominems towards masses of individuals |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Neither. |
|
61% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
iamnotaparakeet
Eddie's Carr
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 9973
Location: 44.7N 93.6W
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: Which type of Ad Hominem is better? |
 |
|
Does going against a mass of people with sweeping generalizations hurt any less than attacking a person on an individual basis?
_________________
Ego non psittacus sum, sed amici mei psittaci sunt.
Deum meum culpabant ob toto malo, sed Deum meum laudabo ob toto bono. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5384
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why can't we say both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Eddie's Carr
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 9973
Location: 44.7N 93.6W
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Why can't we say both? |
What?
_________________
Ego non psittacus sum, sed amici mei psittaci sunt.
Deum meum culpabant ob toto malo, sed Deum meum laudabo ob toto bono. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5384
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: |
What? |
Neither suggests that both of these are bad. Both suggests that they can both provide a rip-roaring good time! |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Eddie's Carr
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 9973
Location: 44.7N 93.6W
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: |
What? |
Neither suggests that both of these are bad. Both suggests that they can both provide a rip-roaring good time! |
I can see the end of logic, it is very close.
_________________
Ego non psittacus sum, sed amici mei psittaci sunt.
Deum meum culpabant ob toto malo, sed Deum meum laudabo ob toto bono. |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7058
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: |
What? |
Both suggests that they can both provide a rip-roaring good time! |
Yeah, that's why the 'Both' option is needed.
_________________
Maybe none of it was real. Perhaps we were all part of a shared illusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Eddie's Carr
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 9973
Location: 44.7N 93.6W
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just post it if you actually think "both" are good, so that I may add you to my mental ignore list.
_________________
Ego non psittacus sum, sed amici mei psittaci sunt.
Deum meum culpabant ob toto malo, sed Deum meum laudabo ob toto bono. |
|
| Back to top |
|
sartresue
Radical Aspergian
Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Posts: 1959
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: Which type of Ad Hominem agument is better? |
|
|
Argument Ad Infinitum topic
 I like iamnotaparakeet's answer.
_________________
Radical Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind
Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5384
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: |
I can see the end of logic, it is very close. |
"Logic is dead. Logic remains dead. And we have killed it. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3030
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: |
I can see the end of logic, it is very close. |
"Logic is dead. Logic remains dead. And we have killed it. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" |
Ooh, parable of the madman, I like it. Really Ben, there should have been more options on the poll. There are some times when ad hominem is called for, or at least useful. No, it's not a rigorous logically valid argument form, but if all arguments were than they would tend to be over pretty quickly.
I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Eddie's Carr
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 9973
Location: 44.7N 93.6W
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine. |
There is a difference, though, between a personal attack and constructive criticism.
One builds up and the other tears down; this matters only if the person is worth more than the argument though. But if it matters more to win a debate in words than it is to help someone, ... do you see what I mean?
Also, if you think a person is beyond help, why start a flame war with them? What's the point?
_________________
Ego non psittacus sum, sed amici mei psittaci sunt.
Deum meum culpabant ob toto malo, sed Deum meum laudabo ob toto bono. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5384
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine. |
I dunno, large groups could be fun too. But, you are right, individuals are better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3030
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | | I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine. |
There is a difference, though, between a personal attack and constructive criticism.
One builds up and the other tears down; this matters only if the person is worth more than the argument though. But if it matters more to win a debate in words than it is to help someone, ... do you see what I mean?
Also, if you think a person is beyond help, why start a flame war with them? What's the point? |
OK, maybe I should clarify: we had several debates over evolution recently. If you were to bring up Ben Stein, I would reject his arguments out of hand because he has demonstrated himself in the past to lack intellectual honesty. But it wouldn't be as reasonable to reject all creationist arguments in a similar manner (well, a case could be made that you could, but I won't). An individual can be rejected as a reliable source if they consistently show themselves to be unreliable. EG I tend to lend credence to AG's comments on economics, and ignore snake321 on politics. Argument from authority (the inverse of ad hominem) is not a valid argument form, but it can be useful if the authority is recognized as knowledgeable (I could quote Einstein if we were discussing physics) and ad hominem works the same way- I can reject an argument from someone on the basis that they have no idea what they're talking about.
Or, if you want to look at it another way: the post topic was "Which type of ad hominem is better?" "Better" is a qualitative statement and is logically equivalent to "less bad." If one is "worse" than the other must necessarily be "better." Since I would say attacking an entire group (think anti-semites, KKK, islamophobes, militant atheists who claim that all Christians are idiots etc all engage in this) is worse than attacking an individual (criticizing Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins/George W Bush/Michael Moore), ad hominem against an individual must be better than against a group.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
twoshots
Stranger
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 1315
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ad hominem is a fallacy because its use is an attempt at avoiding the actual argument.
Verbal abuse is morally questionable but logically neutral as long as it does not take the place of meaningful points.
Who is 'hurt' is not relevant to the ad hominem
_________________
Without logic reason is useless.
With it, you can win arguments and alienate multitudes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3030
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Orwell wrote: |
I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine. |
I dunno, large groups could be fun too. But, you are right, individuals are better. |
Only if you're going to use them as a scapegoat.  "People in filthy, rat-infested cities are dying of plague." "It's because the Jews poisoned the wells! BURN THEM!!!  "
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
