in the context of the list:
- an act that attempts to falsely inflate the esteem of the user
- an appeal to other like minded "deplorables".
Ad Hominem - why do people do it?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
gosh... and another member(s) here at sciforums reckoned that you never get any value from internet forum postings... lol
"But false hood is" ---- incredible... unintended perhaps but...
Imagine therapy for a pathological liar:
example: Teach them to deliberately lie...
sorry ... too deep again...swim up , swim up...lol
"But false hood is" ---- incredible... unintended perhaps but...
Imagine therapy for a pathological liar:
example: Teach them to deliberately lie...
sorry ... too deep again...swim up , swim up...lol
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sure, but with the following caveat: sometimes - it seems - turning the discussion to the person is not necessarily these things (dishonest, humiliative, cowardly).
Sometimes an opponent is so ignorant - and at the same time arrogant, and so consistent - that their flawed arguments appear to be merely symptoms of the personality behind them.
If the opponent is not arguing in good faith, then they are violating the unwritten terms of a discussive contract, thus one is released from one's obligation to take everything they say as if in a debative context.
I have been in many discussions - here on SciFo - where the opponent clearly has some delusions (and often proud of them), and cannot - or will not - make a coherent argument - yet they keep at it. At some point, sometimes one must stop deflecting the bullets and do something about the gunner.
This is a case where an ad hom may well be an appropriate response to a bad faith opponent.
Last edited:
Neither is necessarily present.
if you were to write a list of definitive traits what would you write?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I think therefore I am.
Doubt there are any other definitive truths.
All the rest I might call provisional truths - the first provision being "I assume that what my senses detect is objective reality."
Couple Decartes with Plato's Cave and you arrive at the above.
Would it be a fair thing to suggest that the core issue/heading can be stated as
"Self -esteem"
"Self -esteem"
sure, but if you consider that the opponent as you say, is obviously showing signs of serious mental health issues (albeit functional) then going for the gunner isn't going to be much help, if anything it may reinforce the problem. I might add from experience it is always, always, difficult to find the best way to deal with these situations.
What happened in the other thread is a classic a case of getting caught up in the heat of the moment, and my own cognitive failure kicked in. I made a huge mistake and paid accordingly. Being too focused on the assault and not the actual error.
What I tend to do is focus on what I see is good or positive about the person and gently move away after they start to raise their own questions about their own beliefs and leave them to it..
Where did I say that winning was more important than the truth?
If you want to start a topic on what's wrong with the US judicial system, I'd be interested.
BTW - Does anyone the name of the tactic wherein a particular is example is magnified out of proportion and context, so that it displaces the original topic?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Remember that they're not the only one reading the thread.
Sometimes the target is lost, but one can still use it as an opportunity to teach others.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Digression?
Sure. You claimed that you reckoned there were two perspectives on what amounts to abuse. I was simply clarifying that it seemed to me that those two were 1: yours; 2: everyone else's.
Out of curiousity, is what you quote what iceaura said, or your interpretation of something he said?
Either way, if by "not fully stating the truth" you mean situations where we deliberately withhold information that we have, then yes, we all know when we are lying or not fully stating the truth. This is not "deep". This is merely saying that we are aware of doing things when we do them deliberately. Lying is a deliberate action. Deliberately withholding information likewise. Try doing anything deliberately and see if you can do so without knowing that you're doing it.
Deep? For someone who is afraid of water, perhaps.
They do know they are not telling the truth. But they can't help themselves from doing it, and their reason for doing it is not obvious, if understood at all - e.g. there might often be no personal gain to be had from it. But they do know they are not telling the truth. That is why it is called "pathological lying" and not simply being ignorant of things, or having some neurological dysfunction that means they are unable to learn. They know that Paris is the capital of France, but for whatever reason, they might tell you that it is the capital of England.
At first. Now I think it's escalated to derailment, so I'll get off before the wreck.
No, you wouldn't be valid in most cases.
Futile intellectual dishonesty? That would depend if the ad hominem is picked up as such and rejected, or whether it succeeds in its purpose.
A lie? No, most often it is not a lie at all. It is an effort at deflection, not lying. If I were to seek to reject a person's claim because of (insert some unpleasant truth about the person unrelated to the claim made) then I would not be lying, but rather just trying to deflect.
Act of cowardice? No, just a fallacious argument. Generalising it as an act of cowardice would be to ignore context. Many ad hominem are entirely accidental.
ahh .. thanks for clarifying your mistake...
and your intention was what?
perhaps if you read his posts you would know...
given your lack of good will, I will refrain from discussing the rest of your post...
Last edited:
And what mistake is that?
I did read his posts and couldn't find what you quoted. Perhaps an oversight on my part, perhaps not. If not, I am curious as to why you put it in quotes.
As for the "lack of good will" you perceive (even though there is none on my part, as anyone reading my post without an agenda can testify), a touch ironic that you have resorted to an ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issues presented.
Is this an act of futile intellectual dishonesty on your part? A lie that seeks to minimise the humiliation of your defeat? A lie that seeks to reduce the revelation of my intellectual truth? Or simply an act of cowardice on your part?
If you think it is none of these (and we would need to disagree on at least one of these if that is the case) then you have answered your own question from post #57.
And as for your post #67: do you suffer from self-esteem issues? After all, did you not suggest that this was the core issue/heading of the fallacy in the question?
well we are on a journey of discovering why people use the strategy.
The what is an ad hominem argument has been more or less clarified and now we are discussing the why use it bit...
probably go for pages... before we really get to it...
Assuming we aren't side railed by in house attacks on personalities...
Regardless there has already been startling insights gained... thanks...
Last edited:
lol.. good example provided ... thanks...
Why do you seek to belittle your fellow man ?
A response such as you allude to, vaguely, is not an ad hominem argument, therefore not an "ad hom".
Bad, fallacious argument is hardly a response at all - let alone one that deals with a bad faith opponent.
There is no "ad hominem attack", whatever that is supposed to mean, in that post.
Doubtful. Arguments are not accidental, as a rule.
Last edited: