There is a difference between saying "X is not to be trusted" which regards X's character in general
It presents a cause-effect relationship between present situation and his conclusion.
More like: "Your reason for believing that is faulty: these were my good-faith arguments."
where in any of your relevant posts do you claim my arguments were not genuine?
II was giving an example of how not taking responsibility for your ignorance can lead to fatal consequences.
if you could address post #123 I would appreciate it. Of course you are under no obligation to do anything.
No, it's not a sound argument as the faith of the poster has nothing to do with the worth of the points being raised. Motive, agenda, posting in good faith or not is not relevant to the point, or its worth. The points raised stand or fall on their own merit, not the character of the individual. And denigrating the points, tainting their worth, via an attack on the individual, is an ad hominem argument. That can be achieved either by directly addressing the points with the personal attack, or via a personal attack to avoid discussing them at all.
What does validity have to do with it? Validity is about the form of deductive arguments. Argumentum ad hominem is a matter of informality, nothing to do with validity.
Yes, it is.
Why are you bringing validity into the issue? Ad hominems have nothing to do with validity.
perhaps you could quote the post that I chose not to respond to, or do you want me to do it ...It certainly can be. If it is my firmly held belief that X is not to be trusted, that is certainly an attack on X’s character, is it not?
Now that would not be an ad hominem.
There is no intention to avoid the arguments via the accusation (they’ve mostly been addressed separately) and the accusation of not arguing in good faith is laid out separately from the points themselves. This is similar to simply adding an insult onto a response. If the point is addressed, and you add “and you must be an ignorant @#£& not to realise” then that is just an insult and not an ad hominem argument.
Which is why it would merely be considered an insult and not an ad hominem. The insult was not the cause of the rejection of your argument but the conclusion of it.
True... I never stated it was an AHA. The poster only incorrectly assumed I believed it was because I invited him/her to participate in this thread.
By anyone who reads what is said.
Each individual possibly has different reasons for interpreting things the way the do.
Don't get hung up on the need for arguments to be in the form of syllogisms.This is not an argument. It does not require anyone to grant it as valid or refute it as invalid. (In programmer's terms, it takes no inputs - literally, it takes zero arguments.)
Any sentence that includes words like "because..." or "given that..." by way of explaining a thought process contains an argument and a conclusion: something is done (belief, action, idea) for justification X.
Don't get hung up on deductive arguments and syllogisms.
No, it would be that the despite the perception of bad faith, the points remain worthy of consideration.
The implication is writ large for all to see, and it is rather disingenuous of you to try to now distance yourself from it simply because you didn't explicitly state it.
It is your self confessed ignorance of the relevance that drives your incorrect assessment that my post was an argumentum ad hominem.
nice side step... and example of agumentum ad hominem.
I'll wait for you to actually post why it is relevant, then. Otherwise your comments will continue to remain vacuuous.
Not at all. You're the one trying to side-step responsibility for the implication of what you posted. Just own it and move on. Nothing to be gained from not doing so, and will only result in further ridiculous face-saving efforts on your part keeping us amused. But I'll leave you to resolve any issue you have with it with Bw/S. It's enough for me to have concluded that it wasn't the ad hominem argument it was implied to be.
another good example of an Argumentum ad hominem... .. another example for your thread in the philosophy fora.
That makes no difference - the argument is not about the points being raised, but rather the worth of engagement with the poster who is raising them - or in the case of bullshit, pretending to raise them.
No, it isn't.
See post 140, on the topic of dealing with bullshit.
As I have posted several times now, when dismissing the relevance of the points raised, regardless of their validity, in making that decision.
It is relevant to the decision of whether or not to engage with the poster's arguments.
But it is relevant to the decision to engage with that poster, deal with the poster's arguments and points.
"Argumentum ad hominem" is a formal designation, a category of invalid (fallacious) argument.
That's a bit of conundrum, online. If you've never met somebody - like, they never stole your parking spot, or yogurt, or promotion - what caused the dislike and disrespect? How did they make a negative impression on you? Presumably through their posts. (Well, okay, maybe their use of emoticons. That can be very annoying.) If their arguments had been completely valid and had something to teach you, why would you have conceived such an animosity toward them as to dismiss those arguments?
