interesting...
Ad Hominem - why do people do it?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
How much is "sadistic fun" involved do you think?
Do people do it because they see it as fun to do?
Intellectual dueling or sparing?
Like a sport where by "capturing the flag" at all costs is what matters and not the object/goal of the discussion.
we humans love our sports, after all yes?
Do people do it because they see it as fun to do?
Intellectual dueling or sparing?
Like a sport where by "capturing the flag" at all costs is what matters and not the object/goal of the discussion.
we humans love our sports, after all yes?
Last edited:
it is interesting that there appears to be at least two perspectives on what amounts to abuse, slowly emerging in this thread...
How do you define Abuse?
Again this separation of tool wielder and tool comes up. Scientist and science etc...
extend to deeper - Cogito Ergo Sum.. "I think there for I am" :- the act of thinking being the tool of the Identity.
go even deeper - compare fatalism and self determinism and how it may be relevant. (rhetorical)
Currently a hot debate in the USA about Gun control.
Is it the gun
the gunner
or both combined?
Surely it is worth noting that the Gunners identity is so wrapped up with his "tools" ( guns) at the time he is using them at least?
perhaps,
I am not so sure...
Could it be the same with a person who uses name calling?
Can the name caller and the tools of the name caller really be treated as separate?
Example:
"The insulter is not me, it is only what I do"
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I don't think it is.
An ad hom is a way of avoiding having to address a counterargument.
If you're just being mean, then it's not really a factor in the dynamics of a discussion.
Ad homs - like trolling - are a choice. One can always choose to stop doing it and engage in good-faith discussion.
The shorthand "ad hom" seems to obscure and confuse the meaning of the term "ad hominem argument"
An ad hominem argument is a form of argument. It's not a form of insult. It's not merely a personal attack, slander, or insult.
If there's no argument, there's no "ad hom".
I don't think "ad homs", the plural, is ever used correctly - when it's used, it always seems to refer to insults or slanders or the like. I've never seen it used to refer to multiple different arguments.
An ad hominem argument is a form of argument. It's not a form of insult. It's not merely a personal attack, slander, or insult.
If there's no argument, there's no "ad hom".
I don't think "ad homs", the plural, is ever used correctly - when it's used, it always seems to refer to insults or slanders or the like. I've never seen it used to refer to multiple different arguments.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
what is most important ?
who i am
one in the same when they drive the individual into actions steered by the Ego
the lack of having a navigation room/pilot creating the loss of self needing to be replaced by the narcissism. it takes on many forms, commonly domestic abuse and co-dependent interpersonal relationships.
to the outliers of homicide and sadism
emotional sadism (& emotional & physical Self harm)is more common.
this is getting almost too involved giving tools to trolls to use against victims.
and you can see on this site how many self acclaimed morally stationed intellectuals will so easily become the troll and seek to inflict emotional damage on others.
... sadism
who i am
one in the same when they drive the individual into actions steered by the Ego
the lack of having a navigation room/pilot creating the loss of self needing to be replaced by the narcissism. it takes on many forms, commonly domestic abuse and co-dependent interpersonal relationships.
to the outliers of homicide and sadism
emotional sadism (& emotional & physical Self harm)is more common.
this is getting almost too involved giving tools to trolls to use against victims.
and you can see on this site how many self acclaimed morally stationed intellectuals will so easily become the troll and seek to inflict emotional damage on others.
... sadism
with the intention to clarify the terms usage:
If a person resorts to "insults" simply because they disagree and not because they do not have a good counter argument is this an Ad Hom?
(thinking ...bar room brawl or other informal discussion that inevitably include argument/debate)
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Technically it's just a fallacious argument (attacking the person) rather than the topic at hand. We know that on this site it seems to be used for any personal attack by one person against another.
It doesn't really matter what the semantics are and to get off track by discussing semantics is just another way of avoiding (in many cases) the argument at hand.
That's not what identifies it. Most attacks are just that - not ad hominem arguments at all, but insults and slanders and so forth.
Unless the semantics are part of the avoidance - as in the case of the bullshit "ad hom" label so beloved by wingnuts as an accusation and deflection, when no ad hominem argument is present.
No. Mindreading is not involved in identifying ad hominem arguments.
Generally, the shorthand form (ad hom, especially ad homs) marks an illiterate misuse. That's not necessarily the case - just the way to bet.
An interesting point!
So how is a "true" ad hominem argument get identified if no mind reading is possible?
Nobody insults anybody "simply because they disagree" on a particular topic. Some people do identify with factions on certain contentious issues, and so classify those with opposing viewpoints as members of a rival faction. If such gang behaviour results in taunts and name-calling, there is no fallacy, no logic, no argument; it's a mere symptom of polarization.
Rather than asking about motivations for this and that - with the same suggestive examples, again and again - why not resort to correct labelling?
ad hominem is a logical fallacy - that's all - not a great big psychological pit into which all manner of verbal misconduct may be shovelled.
It seems to me, a very, very limited amount.
Poster A. calls poster B. a stupid slug
Poster B. has put considerable thought and effort, maybe even google-time, into their post, and being called a stupid slug may make them feel bad, for a whole minute, possibly - course, it depends on whether they gave a flying fig for the opinion of Poster A in the first place -
and they might even stop contributing to the thread.
Where's the pleasure for A.? They can't see or hear the results. They can't even know whether it worked. Whatever sadism may be involved, it's all in poster A.'s head. No feedback, no fun.
Intellectual sparring is a whole different thing. It takes place between approximate equals, gives pleasure to both participants and hurts nobody.
No, it's nothing like that.
In a game, the objective, such as capturing a flag, is clearly defined and must be accomplished according to known rules.
Discussions usually have neither, beyond basic forum guidelines.
There is no flag to capture. Winning virtual arguments with strangers also takes place in the "winner's" head, as the "loser" usually doesn't even know they've lost.
I ask one more time: Why mix all these different verbal exercises?
What is the
?
Last edited:
I am not so sure about that, but that is just me being pedantic I guess...
indeed...
To be honest when I started this thread I really had no idea, which of course is mainly why I started this thread.
The latest comment by Iceaura about mind-reading has really changed the dynamic IMO.
Because the use of the term to describe a
- defense to an insult projected in an argument (colloquial ad hom)
- A simple insult or attack on another person to incite a reaction ( flame)
- when adjudicating a formal debate etc (formal legit ad Hominem argument)
The only person who knows whether it was an ad hominem argument whether colloquial, formal or simply an insult is the perpetrator, as no one can actually read his mind.
I am not sure I am making sense but will work on it...
A totally unexpected understanding IMO...
Everyone who can read whatever argument has been presented can identify its form - an ad hominem argument is a form of argument. If there is no argument present (90+% of the time one sees "ad hom" in a forum thread) there is no ad hominem argument present.
You don't read the mind. You read the posted text.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Wingnuts and illiterates, at least you are being factual.
ok... (again just to clarify)
Two mathematical professionals PA and PB are having an argument over a particular formula.
PA says "The formula is absolutely correct"
PB says "No it isn't"
PA says "Why not?"
PB says "Because you are absolutely hopeless at math"
( I maybe incorrectly assuming the above to be a reasonable example)
How can you determine PB's last response:
- is just an insult
- is an ad hominem argument
just from the text or in any situation?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
It might be factual.
The word "because" identifies the presence of an argument.
Is it an ad hominem argument? Sure. The formula is either correct or incorrect as it stands, if it were written by a pigeon cleaning the pizza crumbs out of somebody's keyboard. Someone's talent at math is evaluated by the correctness of their formulas etc - not the other way around. (Getting the direction of argument backward seems to be a key factor in the misuse of "ad hom" etc. - the source of that blunder in the US is ready to hand.)
Last edited:
You mean yours and everyone else's?
If you mean in terms of abusing someone, then along the lines of deliberate attempt to cause harm.
This is a very poor example, in that guns are specifically designed to be used in a certain manner - i.e. to harm life.
Compare to a hammer: designed with a non-harmful purpose in mind, that can be used to harm.
Ad hominem arguments are simply arguments that attack the person so as to avoid addressing the argument at hand. Harmful or not is in the intent to which the neutral form is applied.
No more than anything someone does can be treated as separate from themselves.
Also bear in mind that name-calling, in this context at least, is the deliberate attempt to hurt someone's feelings - so again somewhat different to an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem might be an insult, but it needn't be.
To wit, two cab drivers having a discussion:
A: "Westminster is the first area you drive through once you cross the bridge."
B: "But the map says that if you drive over the bridge then you're in Pimplico, not Westminster."
A: "Ah, but you never drive over the bridge, do you, so what do you know!"
A has no intention to insult, but the last comment is an ad hominem, attacking B rather than their point. In this case, the fact that driver B never drives on the other side of the bridge doesn't have any bearing on what the map says. But A uses this fact as an attack against driver B, to avoid addressing B's point. And by "attack" it simply means raising a point aimed at/about the person, in an ad hom usually in an effort to discredit the argument they have just made.
Had A concluded by saying "But I've hear you're a *&$%ing $£@#, so what do you know!" then this would still be an ad hominem but also an insult.
please explain?