Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 3:17 pm**

Gabon, it must take you hours to untie yourself from the knots you create during the day. Your bones must be made of rubber.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 3:24 pm**

GabonX wrote:You're argument is fundamentally flawed as I do know what an ad-hominem attack is and have described it accurately. You can claim that I do not know what it is but until you demonstrate that it means something else (which is impossible because I'm right ) the intelligent members of this forum can disregard anything and everything you have to say on this matter.

wikipedia wrote:An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

No actually, you completely misunderstand what an ad hominem argument is. An insult is not the same as an ad hominem.

For Sultan to make an argumentum ad hominem he would have to claim that your argument is invalid because you're stupid. You made no argument, so it's quite literally impossible for him to make an argumentum ad hominem.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 3:27 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:For Sultan to make an argumentum ad hominem he would have to claim that your argument is invalid because you're stupid. You made no argument, so it's quite literally impossible for him to make an argumentum ad hominem.

Um... I may be nitpicking, but that is what Sultan does. He says, "Hey, your argument is wrong because you're stupid." At least that's usually the gist of most of his posts. In any event, I'm unfamiliar with the term "ad hominem" because I'm not Roman. I simply like to say that Sultan discredits his own arguments by attacking the person not the person's argument.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 3:32 pm**

Snorri, an insult is not always an ad hominem attack, but Sultan uses insults as such quite frequently. Just about every insult that he throws is an attempt to discredit some one's argument and most of the time he doesn't actually make any points about the actual issue being discussed. His insults are ad hominem attacks plain and simple.

You need to go back and re-read this thread. I stated that his ad hominem attacks indicate that his position on the issues is quite weak (this was my argument) to which he responded with a series of ad hominem attacks including that I am stupid and that I do not know what ad hominem means. :roll:

Take a look at his post history as this trend extends far beyond this thread.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 3:36 pm**

thegreekdog wrote: In any event, I'm unfamiliar with the term "ad hominem" because I'm not Roman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

oh, and hey, here's a good list of common logical fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 3:51 pm**

pimpdave wrote:
thegreekdog wrote: In any event, I'm unfamiliar with the term "ad hominem" because I'm not Roman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

oh, and hey, here's a good list of common logical fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies

Oh great... now I'm going to get a letter in the mail from my office. Thanks pimp, I really appreciate it.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 3:58 pm**

Pimp thinks that kind of shit is funny. It's no wonder there's a whole class of people who get their current events primarily from Comedy Central.

Anyhow, here is the real definition. It's pretty much what you described Sultan as doing.

wikipedia wrote:An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:00 pm**

GabonX wrote:Pimp thinks that kind of shit is funny. It's no wonder there's a whole class of people who get their current events primarily from Comedy Central.

It probably is funny. I just can't read it. My work blocks it. And then sends a nasty letter out and puts a black mark in my file. This is not good.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:01 pm**

i love that the entirety of gabonx's research was reading the introduction on wikipedia. especially since that very same wikipedia article has examples of what is and is not an ad hominem attack

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:01 pm**

GabonX wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:you don't know what an ad hominem attack is

also you are stupid

The underlined portion, like most of your "attacks," is an example of ad-hominem attack.

The red portion is an example of why the above is not an example of ad hominem attack.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:07 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
GabonX wrote:Pimp thinks that kind of shit is funny. It's no wonder there's a whole class of people who get their current events primarily from Comedy Central.

It probably is funny. I just can't read it. My work blocks it. And then sends a nasty letter out and puts a black mark in my file. This is not good.

Oh my bad. The sites are SFW, I assure you. And actually do work on a decent level, in that the ytmnd I link to is an example of an ad hominem attack (going after someone's character rather than argument).

In the future, greekdog, you can avoid that prank by placing your mouse over the hyperlink text, and look at the bottom of your screen to see what the url actually is. Should appear in the bottom left of your browser.

Also, I know a thing or two about HR. If this is an isolated incident, it won't be a big deal at all. Just say you clicked on a link a friend sent, and unknowingly went to a blocked site. If you do this all day long, it'll be a problem. But once every few months, no big deal.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:08 pm**

pimpdave wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
GabonX wrote:Pimp thinks that kind of shit is funny. It's no wonder there's a whole class of people who get their current events primarily from Comedy Central.

It probably is funny. I just can't read it. My work blocks it. And then sends a nasty letter out and puts a black mark in my file. This is not good.

Oh my bad. The sites are SFW, I assure you. And actually do work on a decent level, in that the ytmnd I link to is an example of an ad hominem attack (going after someone's character rather than argument).

In the future, greekdog, you can avoid that prank by placing your mouse over the hyperlink text, and look at the bottom of your screen to see what the url actually is. Should appear in the bottom left of your browser.

Yeah, I'm not mad at you. I should have done the hyperlink text thing, but I was all excited to think that there was an actual wiki on logical fallacies.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:11 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:I was all excited to think that there was an actual wiki on logical fallacies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:12 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, I'm not mad at you. I should have done the hyperlink text thing, but I was all excited to think that there was an actual wiki on logical fallacies.

There is. The text is the real url... I'd post it here, but you might not trust me... anyway, if you copy & paste the texts of those two links, it'll go to the actual wikis.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:13 pm**

SultanOfSurreal wrote:i love that the entirety of gabonx's research was reading the introduction on wikipedia. especially since that very same wikipedia article has examples of what is and is not an ad hominem attack

Wikipedia is a readily available source which I can show here. I have taken courses on "logic and knowledge" but I can hardly show you a class I've taken.

Once again this is an ad hominem attack, like almost all of your other posts. You have not demonstrated how my claim is wrong but have decided to criticize me personally instead of showing a flaw with my argument. That's pretty much the extent of what you do here as you rarely address the issues but instead try to discredit the people talking about them. Of course this only applies if it's some one you disagree with :mrgreen:

You state that there are examples which show what is and what is not an ad hominem attack but you have failed to indicate how these examples demonstrate that you are not guilty of the practice.

Timminz wrote:
GabonX wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:you don't know what an ad hominem attack is

also you are stupid

The underlined portion, like most of your "attacks," is an example of ad-hominem attack.

The red portion is an example of why the above is not an example of ad hominem attack.

Actually it doesn't as he is still trying to discredit me in stating that I am stupid. When ever you use insults as a tactic in a debate you have committed an ad hominem attack. If you say someone is "dumb," "stupid," or really anything else which is directed at the person rather than the issue, you have committed an ad hominem attack and a logical fallacy.

Regardless of this, the first part of the post which I did not underline which reads "you don't know what an ad hominem attack is" is also an ad hominem attack. He is claiming that I do not know what an ad hominem attack is rather than explaining why he is not guilty of the fallacy.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:16 pm**

GabonX wrote:Pimp thinks that kind of shit is funny. It's no wonder there's a whole class of people who get their current events primarily from Comedy Central.

And this is the guy crying about ad hominem attacks. Suck it up, cupcake.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:18 pm**

pimpdave wrote:
GabonX wrote:Pimp thinks that kind of shit is funny. It's no wonder there's a whole class of people who get their current events primarily from Comedy Central.

And this is the guy crying about ad hominem attacks. Suck it up, cupcake.

That was just statement, not part of a debate. I wouldn't ever try to debate you as it's hard to debate with thread bombs..

..which I'm better at than you..

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:19 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:For Sultan to make an argumentum ad hominem he would have to claim that your argument is invalid because you're stupid. You made no argument, so it's quite literally impossible for him to make an argumentum ad hominem.

Um... I may be nitpicking, but that is what Sultan does. He says, "Hey, your argument is wrong because you're stupid." At least that's usually the gist of most of his posts.

I was not saying he never makes an ad hominem fallacy. I am saying that in this case it wasn't an ad hominem.

Snorri, an insult is not always an ad hominem attack, but Sultan uses insults as such quite frequently. Just about every insult that he throws is an attempt to discredit some one's argument and most of the time he doesn't actually make any points about the actual issue being discussed. His insults are ad hominem attacks plain and simple.

Just because someone insults you a lot doesn't mean he is always guilty of making an ad hominem.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:19 pm**

Gabon is starting to remind me of KLOBBER. Don't worry about the things that show you to be wrong. Stay the course.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:21 pm**

As a lawyer, I believe I use the "Many questions" fallacy all the time.

"Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?"

I wonder if there is an objection that can be used for such a question.

Sadly, I love this kind of crap (not the wife-beating, the logic).

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:21 pm**

GabonX wrote:[
Timminz wrote:
GabonX wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:you don't know what an ad hominem attack is

also you are stupid

The underlined portion, like most of your "attacks," is an example of ad-hominem attack.

The red portion is an example of why the above is not an example of ad hominem attack.

Actually it doesn't as he is still trying to discredit me in stating that I am stupid.

He isn't.

When ever you use insults as a tactic in a debate you have committed an ad hominem attack.

So you actually do not understand what an ad hominem is, just like Sultan said.

If you say someone is "dumb," "stupid," or really anything else which is directed at the person rather than the issue, you have committed an ad hominem attack and a logical fallacy.

NO YOU DO NOT!

Regardless of this, the first part of the post which I did not underline which reads "you don't know what an ad hominem attack is" is also an ad hominem attack. He is claiming that I do not know what an ad hominem attack is rather than explaining why he is not guilty of the fallacy.

Holy shit, you really, really ,really don't understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:23 pm**

Timminz wrote:Gabon is starting to remind me of KLOBBER. Don't worry about the things that show you to be wrong. Stay the course.

The word "also" does not prove me wrong.

You're statement here is actually more applicable towards yourself.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:29 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:
GabonX wrote:[
Timminz wrote:
GabonX wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:you don't know what an ad hominem attack is

also you are stupid

The underlined portion, like most of your "attacks," is an example of ad-hominem attack.

The red portion is an example of why the above is not an example of ad hominem attack.

Actually it doesn't as he is still trying to discredit me in stating that I am stupid.

He isn't.
When ever you use insults as a tactic in a debate you have committed an ad hominem attack.

So you actually do not understand what an ad hominem is, just like Sultan said.
If you say someone is "dumb," "stupid," or really anything else which is directed at the person rather than the issue, you have committed an ad hominem attack and a logical fallacy.

NO YOU DO NOT!
Regardless of this, the first part of the post which I did not underline which reads "you don't know what an ad hominem attack is" is also an ad hominem attack. He is claiming that I do not know what an ad hominem attack is rather than explaining why he is not guilty of the fallacy.

Holy shit, you really, really ,really don't understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.

Unless you can demonstrate that my understanding of what an ad hominem attack is is wrong instead of just attacking me by saying "no you don't understand" you are now guilty of an ad hominem fallacy as well.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Stop attacking me. Demonstrate how making a referance to a person engaging in a debate as opposed to addressing the merrits of their argument is not an ad hominem attack if this is the case. Unless you can do that your walking the road of ad hominem.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:30 pm**

THIS THREAD IS AWESOME

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 4:31 pm**

GabonX wrote:Actually it doesn't as he is still trying to discredit me in stating that I am stupid.

Regardless of this, the first part of the post which I did not underline which reads "you don't know what an ad hominem attack is" is also an ad hominem attack. He is claiming that I do not know what an ad hominem attack is rather than explaining why he is not guilty of the fallacy.

it's not ad hominem if it is relevant to the discussion. you don't know what ad hominem is and that is very important when discussing ad hominem. it is also not incumbent upon me to disprove every baseless claim made against me

in conclusion you are an enormous clod

hope this helps

Conquer Club

Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...

Re: Wanda Sykes...