Correct. So you can't say "well, if they say X they MUST be stupid!"They could be anything.
Correct. So you can't say "well, if they say X they MUST be stupid!"They could be anything.
Correct. That's why I didn't.Correct. So you can't say "well, if they say X they MUST be stupid!"
That sounds more like ignorance.My personal, non-argumentative opinion is that stupidity confined to a single subject is still stupidity.
OK. First it sounds like you are saying exactly that (i.e. that if they say X, they must be stupid.)Correct. That's why I didn't.
I said that if Poster A keeps posting stupid remarks on Subject X, Poster B might argue that the evidence presented lead him to the conclude that poster A is stupid, and that would not constitute an ad hominem argument.
On the whole, no; on the heart, yes.That sounds more like ignorance.
Professor Z might know 999 sciences, but he knows nothing of the human heart.
That woudn't make him - on the whole - stupid - it would just make him ignorant in one domain.
I don't think it's worth going around a third time. That's not an assessment of participants, nor the quality of participation.OK. First it sounds like you are saying exactly that (i.e. that if they say X, they must be stupid.)
And where was it ever stated it was what you say it isn't?Okay, first one:
Example 1:
Summary: an argument was presented, a response was given that was considered at the time to be an ad hominem. Link to relevant posts in the quote...
In this case the initial response (post #331) looks to be simply an insult. There is perhaps an implication that it is because the person X has this character flaw that his point is wrong, but it seems more to be the case that the insult is a result of the point being considered to be flawed. There is no attempt to avoid or reject the point because of the perceived character flaw, rather the point is assessed, and the insult follows. The insult in this case is simply a poetic claim that the argument is wrong, not the reasoning for it being wrong.
My conclusion: no ad hominem in post #331.
Whether it has been stated that it is or isn’t is irrelevant. In another thread Bw/S asked the question of whether what was said was an argumentum ad hominem or not. You do not need to have explicitly stated that it was an ad hominem for it to be taken up as an example for discussion.And where was it ever stated it was what you say it isn't?
Quote please.
And you expect the reader to take your word for it.Whether it has been stated that it is or isn’t is irrelevant. In another thread Bw/S asked the question of whether what was said was an argumentum ad hominem or not. You do not need to have explicitly stated that it was an ad hominem for it to be taken up as an example for discussion.
Again, this thread is an attempt to look at the matter rationally, non-judgementally, etc.
The question was asked, a response has been given.
Do you disagree with the conclusion reached, that it was not an argumentum ad hominem? Your answer, and your reasoning for such, is all that is relevant to the matter.
Okay, first one:
Example 1:
Summary: an argument was presented, a response was given that was considered at the time to be an ad hominem. Link to relevant posts in the quote...
So what? It is being used as an example. End of story.And you expect the reader to take your word for it.
I was never asked whether it was ad hominem or not.
There is no mistake being made.Are you trying to avoid your mistake again?
Where have I said that it is a false AAH? It is simply an example, raised because someone asked the question of whether it was or was not (his reasons for asking are his own), for consideration of whether it is an AAH or not.so your very first example of a false AAH is in fact wrong. Which is really surprising given that you claim to know what you are talking about.
In this thread whether it was initially considered an AAH or not is irrelevant. Please get it through your head that this thread is simply to examine examples raised of posts, and whether or not the post is an example of an AAH. This example was selected because the poster asked the question of whether it was or was not. It’s as simple as that.Of course it is only an insult, that entirely reflects the abusive nature of the poster. It was never stated or considered as a AAH to begin with.
Please justify why you believe that the response, which is an obvious insult only, was considered to be an AAH?
The rest of your post is simply irrelevant to this thread. This thread starts with an example, in this case because the question was asked about it by the poster themself. Period.The
...
future.
Please can you refrain from letting your disagreement with QQ from that other thread spill over into this? Thanks.Yes, I called you a retard...
No, an AHA is an argument intended to avoid, deflect, or otherwise counter the point raised, by attacking the person.OK. First it sounds like you are saying exactly that (i.e. that if they say X, they must be stupid.)
Also, that's kinda the definition of an ad hominem argument - an argument directed against a person, not the material they are arguing. "Your argument is stupid" - not AHA. "You are stupid (for any reason)" - AHA.
ok...Get on board with that, or, with all due respect, QQ, kindly fuck off.
The point being to make sure you include the subjectivity of the assessments in your analysis.The key to your argument is for you to contend that the inference taken was the inference intended..
and it is extremely weak because:
How can you Know what was intended?
fuck off
No. Any inference or implication on your or Bw/S’ part is irrelevant. The question was asked whether their post constituted an AAH. That is all that matters in why we are looking at it here.ok...
Most of your argument in this case rests on the inferences made and not on the actual words posted.
No, the above is not relevant to the thread. It does not matter whether Bw/S thought it was an AAH or not, but simply that they have asked whether, in our opinion, it is or is not.The point being to make sure you include the subjectivity of the assessments in your analysis.
Do you agree that the above post is relevant to your thread?
If not I will gladly leave you to your...uhmmm discussion...and do as you so respectfully asked me to do and :
Not talking about bws am talking about yours...your inferencesNo. Any inference or implication on your or Bw/S’ part is irrelevant. The question was asked whether their post constituted an AAH. That is all that matters in why we are looking at it here.
No, the above is not relevant to the thread. It does not matter whether Bw/S thought it was an AAH or not, but simply that they have asked whether, in our opinion, it is or is not.
In my opinion, no, it is not an AAH, for reasons given, none of which needs to take into account whether or not you (inadvertently or otherwise) implied it was, nor whether Bw/S thinks it is or not.
No.Also, that's kinda the definition of an ad hominem argument - an argument directed against a person, not the material they are arguing. "Your argument is stupid" - not AHA. "You are stupid (for any reason)" - AHA.
In the world of US blue-collar labor , the confusion of ignorance and stupidity is all but universal.I don't think that smart people are selectively stupid. It's semantics and how you see them of course. "Stupid" generally refers to intelligence and not knowledge.
I beg to differ, but this may simply be due to being on different sides of the pond. I’m not disagreeing that it is an ad hominem... it is. I disagree that it is not based on a “personal attack”. If one only uses the phrase in the case of negative attacks then I would agree, but in my experience a “personal attack”, when used in this context (of discussing ad hominems) is simply any argument against the person (motive, character), Whether negative or positive. In your illustration the attack is with regard a positive trait, but it is still a “personal attack”.Illustration: "You are too intelligent to post such a simplification unless as a troll or joke, so your argument is invalid and your conclusion is false"
That is an ad hominem argument. It is not based on a "personal attack".