The only person who has even attempted to debate the merrits the debate is Snorri. If you insult someone in the context of a debate it is an attack on the man, an ad hominem attack. Even if other information is included, when you insult a person as opposed to arguing the merrits of their position the intention is to discredit them, hence it is an ad hominem attack.
Insults don't really have a place in logically sound debate. I think that part of the problem is that they are so commonly used that people overlook them, but this does not change the fact. Just because it is common practice doesn't make it logically sound.
When one person insults another in the context of a debate the purpose of this is to discredit them. This is the definition of an ad hominem attack.
Timminz wrote:edit- I think I've found the problem. Gabon appears to be assuming that all things written here, are part of a debate, when in actuality there is a fair bit of opinion thrown in. Now, if these opinions were being expressed as reasoning ("you're wrong because you're stupid"), he would be correct in calling them ad hominem, but since they are being expressed as separate statements ("you're wrong, and you're stupid"), I think we've short-circuited his processor.
Pardon me for thinking that everything said durring a debate is part of that debate
You have successfully identified the core of your side of the argument but it's a very weak position to take. By your logic ad hominem attacks arguably do not exist as a person could simply state that an insult included in the context of a debate was not actually part of the debate. It's a cop out.
I know you guys love to argue with me, but just out of curiosity how many of you have taken the time to review Sultan's posts. He has a long history of what I'm talking about any if you haven't looked into it, frankly your speaking out of your ass.
Timminz wrote:edit- I think I've found the problem. Gabon appears to be assuming that all things written here, are part of a debate, when in actuality there is a fair bit of opinion thrown in. Now, if these opinions were being expressed as reasoning ("you're wrong because you're stupid"), he would be correct in calling them ad hominem, but since they are being expressed as separate statements ("you're wrong, and you're stupid"), I think we've short-circuited his processor.
Pardon me for thinking that everything said durring a debate is part of that debate
You have successfully identified the core of your side of the argument but it's a very weak position to take. By your logic ad hominem attacks arguably do not exist as a person could simply state that an insult included in the context of a debate was not actually part of the debate. It's a cop out.
I know you guys love to argue with me, but just out of curiosity how many of you have taken the time to review Sultan's posts. He has a long history of what I'm talking about any if you haven't looked into it, frankly your speaking out of your ass.
Sultan's debate style could be described as dirty pool, but I haven't seen him use an ad hominem fallacy once (and I've read a significant number of his posts).
GabonX wrote:By your logic ad hominem attacks arguably do not exist as a person could simply state that an insult included in the context of a debate was not actually part of the debate.
That doesn't sound like my logic, but please don't let that stop you from continuing to put words in my mouth.
StiffMittens wrote:Sultan's debate style could be described as dirty pool, but I haven't seen him use an ad hominem fallacy once (and I've read a significant number of his posts).
I'm pretty sure he regularly uses ad hominem fallacies. Check out the back and forth between Sultan and that other guy in the "SultanOfSurreal" thread. This poor bastard basically tells Sultan to bring it.
Anyway, I don't want to get involved in this because I don't know enough about the ad hominem fallacy. Suffice it to say, if Sultan ever stopped using personal attacks to refute arguments, he'd be much better at making his point. But, I think he likes it.
Timminz wrote:edit- I think I've found the problem. Gabon appears to be assuming that all things written here, are part of a debate, when in actuality there is a fair bit of opinion thrown in. Now, if these opinions were being expressed as reasoning ("you're wrong because you're stupid"), he would be correct in calling them ad hominem, but since they are being expressed as separate statements ("you're wrong, and you're stupid"), I think we've short-circuited his processor.
Pardon me for thinking that everything said durring a debate is part of that debate
You have successfully identified the core of your side of the argument but it's a very weak position to take. By your logic ad hominem attacks arguably do not exist as a person could simply state that an insult included in the context of a debate was not actually part of the debate. It's a cop out.
See, this is the crux of the issue which you don't understand.
An insult included in the "debate" is quite easily identifiable as an ad hominem when it is, simply because an ad hominem has a clear definition.
If you you just look at the two sentences Timminz made as example you can see the difference between ad hominem and insult. While "and you're stupid" doesn't really add anything to the debate, it's not an ad hominem.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
GabonX wrote:By your logic ad hominem attacks arguably do not exist as a person could simply state that an insult included in the context of a debate was not actually part of the debate.
That doesn't sound like my logic, but please don't let that stop you from continuing to put words in my mouth.
Gabby, that is an example of a straw-man logical fallacy, not an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Nice, try, though!
KLOBBER's Highest Score: 3642 (General)
KLOBBER's Highest place on scoreboard: #15 (fifteen) out of 20,000+ players.
StiffMittens wrote:Sultan's debate style could be described as dirty pool, but I haven't seen him use an ad hominem fallacy once (and I've read a significant number of his posts).
I'm pretty sure he regularly uses ad hominem fallacies. Check out the back and forth between Sultan and that other guy in the "SultanOfSurreal" thread. This poor bastard basically tells Sultan to bring it.
Anyway, I don't want to get involved in this because I don't know enough about the ad hominem fallacy. Suffice it to say, if Sultan ever stopped using personal attacks to refute arguments, he'd be much better at making his point. But, I think he likes it.
Were he using personal attacks to refute arguments, he would indeed be guilty of ad hominems. But he isn't, he merely adds insults to rile up the other party to post stupid things. A hostile tone is not the same as an ad hominem argument.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Snorri1234 wrote:Were he using personal attacks to refute arguments, he would indeed be guilty of ad hominems. But he isn't, he merely adds insults to rile up the other party to post stupid things. A hostile tone is not the same as an ad hominem argument.
I do think that if he were more confident in his arguments or his ability to argue, he would not use personal attacks. The problem with Sultan is that while most people use things like "urgay" and "suck it," Sultan likes to use an extensive vocabulary. While I love well-thought-out flames as much as the next person, I think a lot of people refuse to call him out because he uses an extensive vocabulary. Oh well, it doesn't really matter, except that GabonX is wrong. I wish I had the wherewithal to search through all of Sultan's posts to find some ad hominems, but I don't care enough.
Not to change the subject, but Gabby, can you please share with us how it feels to be repeatedly lambasted, trounced, and crushed into the ground by multiple debate opponents? I imagine it must suck!
By the way, you're wrong.
KLOBBER's Highest Score: 3642 (General)
KLOBBER's Highest place on scoreboard: #15 (fifteen) out of 20,000+ players.
KLOBBER wrote:Not to change the subject, but Gabby, can you please share with us how it feels to be repeatedly lambasted, trounced, and crushed into the ground by multiple debate opponents? I imagine it must suck!
This is, by far, the funniest thing I have read all day.
Anyway. Due to lack of sufficient hard evidence, I will recall my statement that Bush was straight-out racist. Instead, I will rephrase and state that Bush is a soleless, over-privileged asshole who happens to have no compassion for the poor. His blatantly slow reaction to the event and overall apathy (between him and his heifer of a wife) displays a glaring lack of sympathy for the affected individuals. The fact that he hasn't had to work a day in his life to gain the power he attained and could in NO way relate to these individuals (or cared to, for that matter...) supports such accusations.
And while we're praising him for 'how great he is for PEPFAR', he's not. He couldn't supply said aid without setting bullshit theological requirements on it. How so? By making the Global Gag Rule apply to AIDs fund distribution. Yeah, there's some serious compassion:
"You're country's suffering, but if you practice something against my religion you can f*ck yourself and die." -George W. Bush (slightly paraphrased).
Yeah, what a fantastic human-being to display such saint-like levels of compassion...
mpjh wrote:I do think that the response to Katrina was flat-out racist.
It can be difficult to differentiate racism from classism, as class and race are intertwined in so many ways, in so many places.
But yeah. Whether it was because they are poor, or because they are black (not to mention the thought that they might be poor because they're black), there's little doubt in my mind that the people "in charge" did not care about the safety and well being of all those people in New Orleans.
