 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| 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 |
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 4748
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| twoshots wrote: | 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 |
That is true and Orwell and I are both misusing the term.
And verbal abuse is fun if the other person deserves it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2484
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | twoshots wrote: | 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 |
That is true and Orwell and I are both misusing the term.
And verbal abuse is fun if the other person deserves it. |
Well, if we're arguing over which is "better" in the sense of more logically sound, of course neither is. But most arguments aren't, so it's rather a moot point.
And I agree with your second sentence.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 6443
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:28 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? |
Yeah, and I actually agree with that, constructive criticism is better than attacks, but I have a question, at one point can one consider a criticism to be constructive and at one point not, at what point do you find a criticism to a group of people to qualify or to be labeled as ad hominem?
Is it easier to recognize ad hominems thrown at us than the ones we make ourselves?
| Quote: | | Also, if you think a person is beyond help, why start a flame war with them? What's the point? |
Because of frustration, it happens everywhere.
_________________
Maybe none of it was real. Perhaps we were all part of a shared illusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 6443
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twoshots wrote: | | Ad hominem is a fallacy because its use is an attempt at avoiding the actual argument. |
I believe there are cases of using the ad hominmen defense as a mechanism to avoid argument, defend your position and/or refute the oposite view (accusation of using ad hominems), therefore a fallacy itself.
_________________
Maybe none of it was real. Perhaps we were all part of a shared illusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Enemy of Wal-Mart!!!
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 9100
Location: 44.7N 93.6W
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greenblue wrote: | | At what point do you find a criticism to a group of people to qualify or to be labeled as ad hominem? |
It's sometimes a matter of how things are said: is the criticism being given in a friendly respectful manner, or is it given in an angry, sarcastic, rude, insulting, belittling, offensive, disrespectful or otherwise malevolent manner?
| greenblue wrote: | | Is it easier to recognize ad hominems thrown at us than the ones we make ourselves? |
Yes, because we feel the sting of words against us, but not always realize the offensiveness of the words we say until we are punished for them. Forethought and consideration are required, that is, if a friendly conversation is to be maintained.
_________________
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 |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2484
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | Forethought and consideration are required, that is, if a friendly conversation is to be maintained. |
Well, now we would have to decide whether a friendly conversation is necessarily always to be desired, and if so, why.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Enemy of Wal-Mart!!!
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 9100
Location: 44.7N 93.6W
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | Forethought and consideration are required, that is, if a friendly conversation is to be maintained. |
Well, now we would have to decide whether a friendly conversation is necessarily always to be desired, and if so, why. |
I guess there is a time and place to be a jackass if one really wishes to be one, but really shouldn't both sides be on friendly terms rather than being emotional misfits?
_________________
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 |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2484
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | Forethought and consideration are required, that is, if a friendly conversation is to be maintained. |
Well, now we would have to decide whether a friendly conversation is necessarily always to be desired, and if so, why. |
I guess there is a time and place to be a jackass if one really wishes to be one, but really shouldn't both sides be on friendly terms rather than being emotional misfits? |
Oh, I was being sarcastic more than anything else. But there are some people who are too exasperating to try to carry on a polite conversation with, so I tend eventually to no longer bother.
Anyways, I still say ad hominem against an individual is better than against a group, for reasons I gave in earlier posts. Criticizing an entire group (and by extension all individuals in it) is worse than criticizing one individual, so individual ad homs are less bad and therefore "better" than group-directed ad homs.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Enemy of Wal-Mart!!!
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 9100
Location: 44.7N 93.6W
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, generalizations about a group are usually invalid to the individual inside and much rather they express the opinion of the person making the generalization than express actual facts.
Some examples:
"Most blacks are criminals" or "most Jews are rich" etc. Even if you have statistical data to back it up, for whatever length of time that data is valid, it still has causality issue. "Are blacks criminals because they are black?" "Are most Jews rich because they are Jews?" (not saying any of these statement, they're just examples.)
What do you think of:
"The majority of modern true scientists accept blah, therefore blah is scientific."
_________________
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 |
|
techstepgenr8tion
cleveland audio assassin
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Age: 28
Posts: 5053
Location: Not now chief! I'm in the zone.
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A mouth full of knuckles for the person dishing the ad hominem - that's my favorite 
If we're talking about forum threads and people expressing thoughts though; I think this where it comes to understanding what's going on with people. When people get incensed with a person off the top just because they said something that happened to be a generality and they became offended because, on their own insecurity, they identified themselves with it - they have to see that for what it is, just like a person with wisdom and perspective will know when a person's just venting or, if from all angles of what they've been stuck with in their own lives, that they've earned their right to at least think or feel it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2484
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | What do you think of:
"The majority of modern true scientists accept blah, therefore blah is scientific." |
I know what you're alluding to.  That is technically an argument from authority, and so the second part of the statement does not necessarily follow from the first. However, the first statement being true would contribute to the likelihood of the second also being true. Logical validity and truth don't always go hand-in-hand. The fact that large numbers of experts in a field support a given statement within that field indicate that it is probably true. EG "Most historians say X occurred, therefore X occurred." It's not a valid logical argument, but it is accepted as being most likely true.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 4748
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: |
"Most blacks are criminals" or "most Jews are rich" etc. Even if you have statistical data to back it up, for whatever length of time that data is valid, it still has causality issue. "Are blacks criminals because they are black?" "Are most Jews rich because they are Jews?" (not saying any of these statement, they're just examples.) |
| Quote: |
"The majority of modern true scientists accept blah, therefore blah is scientific." |
Not an ad hominem. It could be another flaw, or even a somewhat valid argument depending on how it is structured, as that fact can be used to make a reasonably valid argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2484
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | "The majority of modern true scientists accept blah, therefore blah is scientific." |
Not an ad hominem. It could be another flaw, or even a somewhat valid argument depending on how it is structured, as that fact can be used to make a reasonably valid argument. |
Not valid, but probably true. Logical validity is not always equivalent to truth. A logical argument isn't even really an argument in the sense used in colloquial speech and online discussion forums, so the attempts to transfer terminology and ideas from one to the other just creates misconceptions and hinders discussion.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 4748
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
Not valid, but probably true. Logical validity is not always equivalent to truth. A logical argument isn't even really an argument in the sense used in colloquial speech and online discussion forums, so the attempts to transfer terminology and ideas from one to the other just creates misconceptions and hinders discussion. |
Well, depending on what the argument is attempting to prove. Not only that, but I did not argue perfect validity, but reasonably valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2484
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Orwell wrote: |
Not valid, but probably true. Logical validity is not always equivalent to truth. A logical argument isn't even really an argument in the sense used in colloquial speech and online discussion forums, so the attempts to transfer terminology and ideas from one to the other just creates misconceptions and hinders discussion. |
Well, depending on what the argument is attempting to prove. Not only that, but I did not argue perfect validity, but reasonably valid. |
Yes. If we were to say "The majority of modern scientists accept politically liberal positions, therefore liberalism is scientific," that would not hold up. But if we were to say, as iamnotaparakeet hinted at, "The majority of modern scientists accept evolution, therefore evolution is scientific," that statement would be given more credence. Now, what is the difference between the two, which are both arguments from authority? The first is an argument from authority in a field the authority isn't an authority in. The second statement still is not valid (the word valid as it applies to logic has nothing to do with truth or falsehood of statements). I'm objecting to the misuse of terminology here. In logic there's not really "perfect validity" and "reasonably valid," either an argument form is valid or it is invalid.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
