First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Ad Hominem
Posted 10/8/10

makix wrote:


GheyDeer wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:



Yes, but the rest was really nothing.

I don't recall "point" being plural.
<:)

(Sorry, GintokISakata's starting to affect me)

Edit:
Btw, I mean the banned user.


Perhaps I'm mistaking the situation since some posts were deleted... but how does a straw man fallacy come into this discussion? Straw man and Ad Hominem are significantly different...


I feel that they're the same type of indirect attack.
Straw man sounds much kewler.
<:)
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 10/8/10 , edited 10/8/10

GheyDeer wrote:


makix wrote:


GheyDeer wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:



Yes, but the rest was really nothing.

I don't recall "point" being plural.
<:)

(Sorry, GintokISakata's starting to affect me)

Edit:
Btw, I mean the banned user.


Perhaps I'm mistaking the situation since some posts were deleted... but how does a straw man fallacy come into this discussion? Straw man and Ad Hominem are significantly different...


I feel that they're the same type of indirect attack.
Straw man sounds much kewler.
<:)


Straw man = Fallacy of Extension
Ad Hominem = Argument to the Man.

Big difference buddy.

Example of Straw man:
A: We need to legalize and commercialize weed.
B: No, there will be too many kids smoking weed and it is dangerous.
Fallacy: Legalizing weed does not mean full range of commercial access. Person B has extended the term "legalize" to higher extremes.

Example of Ad Hominem:
A: I think weed is fine and should be completely legalized.
B: Of course you do, you're a pot head.
Posted 10/8/10

makix wrote:


GheyDeer wrote:


makix wrote:


GheyDeer wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:



Yes, but the rest was really nothing.

I don't recall "point" being plural.
<:)

(Sorry, GintokISakata's starting to affect me)

Edit:
Btw, I mean the banned user.


Perhaps I'm mistaking the situation since some posts were deleted... but how does a straw man fallacy come into this discussion? Straw man and Ad Hominem are significantly different...


I feel that they're the same type of indirect attack.
Straw man sounds much kewler.
<:)


Straw man = Fallacy of Extension
Ad Hominem = Argument to the Man.

Big difference buddy.

Example of Straw man:
A: We need to legalize and commercialize weed.
B: No, there will be too many kids smoking weed and it is dangerous.
Fallacy: Legalizing weed does not mean full range of commercial access. Person B has extended the term "legalize" to higher extremes.

Example of Ad Hominem:
A: I think weed is fine and should be completely legalized.
B: Of course you do, you're a pot head.

Eh, they both misrepresent the original meaning.
Lets just call it the same.
<:) ?
Posted 10/8/10

GheyDeer wrote:


makix wrote:



Straw man = Fallacy of Extension
Ad Hominem = Argument to the Man.


Big difference buddy.

Example of Straw man:
A: We need to legalize and commercialize weed.
B: No, there will be too many kids smoking weed and it is dangerous.
Fallacy: Legalizing weed does not mean full range of commercial access. Person B has extended the term "legalize" to higher extremes.

Example of Ad Hominem:
A: I think weed is fine and should be completely legalized.
B: Of course you do, you're a pot head.

Eh, they both misrepresent the original meaning.
Lets just call it the same.

<:) ?
No, no, and no.

He had it right, that both logic fallacies aren't the same by their own nature. Because you can't resolve them with the same counterargument.
Posted 10/8/10
I just thought strawman could fit in there somewhere, since this is another common argument seen here on ED.
Posted 10/8/10

DomFortress wrote:


GheyDeer wrote:


makix wrote:



Straw man = Fallacy of Extension
Ad Hominem = Argument to the Man.


Big difference buddy.

Example of Straw man:
A: We need to legalize and commercialize weed.
B: No, there will be too many kids smoking weed and it is dangerous.
Fallacy: Legalizing weed does not mean full range of commercial access. Person B has extended the term "legalize" to higher extremes.

Example of Ad Hominem:
A: I think weed is fine and should be completely legalized.
B: Of course you do, you're a pot head.

Eh, they both misrepresent the original meaning.
Lets just call it the same.

<:) ?
No, no, and no.

He had it right, that both logic fallacies aren't the same by their own nature. Because you can't resolve them with the same counterargument.

But are fallacies classed by how they are solved?
Posted 10/9/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

I just thought strawman could fit in there somewhere, since this is another common argument seen here on ED.
It's true that Strawman is a logical fallacy, but it's goal is different; it doesn't obscure the subject of debate by framing the objective onto the debater, but rather it overgeneralizes the topic with unproven stereotypes. By that nature it's more closely resembles the logical fallacy known as obscurum per obscurius:

Obscurum per Obscurius

Explaining something obscure or mysterious by something that is even more obscure or more mysterious.

Example:

Let me explain what a lucky result is. It is a fortuitous collapse of the quantum mechanical wave packet that leads to a surprisingly pleasing result.(citation)
Observe:

GheyDeer wrote:


But are fallacies classed by how they are solved?
When you can't even tell the different types of logical fallacies there are, how can you be so sure that you've solved any of them correctly? In order for you to solve an Ad Hominem you must either disassociate or associate the topic and the debater objectively. But that's not the case for a Strawman fallacy.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/10/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

I've noticed that a lot of people in ED use these tactics to prove a point, so I decided to create a thread on it.

But first, let's get into what an Ad Hominem is:

An Ad Hominem is marked by or being an attack on a person’s character rather than the actual argument at hand. Why said remarks maybe true, the fact that they still remain irrelevant to the subject being presented is what makes them objectionable.

For Example:

Person 1: In conclusion, I believe that homosexuality is a choice rather than being biological.
Person 2: Of course you would, after all, you are homophobic.
Person 1: But what dose that have to do with my previous argument?
Person 2: It doesn't matter. Like I said, you're homophobic. It's obvious you'd believe otherwise.


There are also different types of Ad Hominem:

Ad hominem circumstantial


For example:
Of course Chris would say that blacks are the most targeted group in America, after all, he happens to be black.

Ad hominem tu quoqueor

For example: A mother tells her child not to become pregnant until she's financially able to raise a child. Said child points out the fact that her mother became pregnant at an early age with very low income. This dose not change the fact that having a child without any way to support it financially is risky and since the mother has been through said experience, her words are still meaningful.

Guilt by association

For example: The majority of serial killers happen to be white. John is white, therefore John is a serial killer.

Straw Man Argument


For example:

Person 1: I believe blaming an entire group of religious individuals just because of 9/11 is absurd.
Person 2: So are you suggesting that you support terrorism?
Person 1: All I said was I do not condone the mistreatment of someone because of their beliefs.
Person 2: Then you obviously aren't American for justifying the crude acts of these people. You're probably one of them.

The problem with this argument is that Person 1 did not say anything about supporting the endangerment of American citizens, Person 2 has quoted his word's out of context and attempting to break down his statement with facilities and turn it against him, thus giving Person 2 the appearance that he has won the argument.

Furthermore, do you believe Ad Hominems are an immature way to win a debate? Or are they actually necessary?

I believe it's an immature tactic. To me it just shows that the person is unable to think of an intelligent way to win a debate, so instead they try to attack the person's character.


You must admit, sometimes (and rare are those times) Ad Hominem attacks are justified. An intergral part of the art of arguing is Ethos, or, Reputation, if you contridict yourself with your prior actions, your agrument will hold less ground. Take, for example, Al Gore, who rode a private jet, travelled by Car, and live in a wasteful mansion, going around and preaching the evil of Global Warming. He rightfully recieved lots of Flak for it. Even if the science is correct, he should at least back it up with his actions.
Posted 10/10/10
It's always amusing seeing exactly where the argument turns ad hominem.
Posted 10/10/10

DomFortress wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

I just thought strawman could fit in there somewhere, since this is another common argument seen here on ED.
It's true that Strawman is a logical fallacy, but it's goal is different; it doesn't obscure the subject of debate by framing the objective onto the debater, but rather it overgeneralizes the topic with unproven stereotypes. By that nature it's more closely resembles the logical fallacy known as obscurum per obscurius:

Obscurum per Obscurius

Explaining something obscure or mysterious by something that is even more obscure or more mysterious.

Example:

Let me explain what a lucky result is. It is a fortuitous collapse of the quantum mechanical wave packet that leads to a surprisingly pleasing result.(citation)
Observe:

GheyDeer wrote:


But are fallacies classed by how they are solved?
When you can't even tell the different types of logical fallacies there are, how can you be so sure that you've solved any of them correctly? In order for you to solve an Ad Hominem you must either disassociate or associate the topic and the debater objectively. But that's not the case for a Strawman fallacy.

Tbh, I don't understand a single thing you said.
So lets just say you won.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.