|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/13/2006 10:22:39 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Calling someone a hypocrite, especially without specific proof, or labelling an individual who isn't a public figure as such, I would consider both a personal attack (ad hominem) and a violation of CollarMe's TOS.
What the fuck does whether someone is a public figure have to do with it?
And for Christ's sake: ad hominem refers to an informal logical fallacy in which an attempt is made to disqualify an argument by besmirching the credibility of the person making it, or someone else named or referred to in the justification of that argument.
In an ad hominem, the attack is not personal. The attack is on an argument, not a person. Any insult to a person is instrumental to the attack, not the point of the attack.
Calling a personal attack an ad hominem is like calling a knife a stabbing. It is a category error.
I'm not sure what throwing-around-inapt-Latin-terms-to-no-good-effect is called, but I think it rhymes with kattywampus.
I didn't see anyone saying that you're wrong because you're a dickhead, Firmhand&KY. That would have been an ad hominem move. Insofar as anyone expressly or implicitly made both claims it seems to me that they were made in parallel.
Incorrect.
First, the "public figure" issue that you do not understand:
Public figure: a term erm applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice. The burden of proof is higher in the case of a public figure.
What this means is that you can get away with calling a public figure all kinds of names, making all kinds of accusations. A private citizen, not in the public's eye and attention, has a much higher level of protection.
I am not a public figure. Call Bush and your favorite (or unfavorite) politican whatever you wish. Do not call me gratitious names, please.
Second, your understanding of ad hominem:
Ad hominem: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.
I think what philosophy did quite well fits this category. To recap:
1. philosophy insinuated in his post 60 that my pointing out that LaM original post was "facile and patronizing" was, in itself "facile and patronizing".
2. I replied to him in my post 67 and asked him:
Back to the original reason I posted to LaM in the first place ... do you not think his original comment was both facile and patronizing?
3. In philosophy's post 94, he replies:
...irrelevant, the point i was making is that you are a hypocrite......quite happy to accuse others of sins you have no trouble committing.
It seems quite clear that philosophy not only did not answer my question (address my argument), he is attempting to discount my declaration that LaM's post was "facile and patronizing" by saying it was immaterial, because I'm a "hypocrite".
This is a classic example of an ad hominem logical fallacy, which IS a personal attack to avoid the argument i.e. my logic is incorrect or immaterial because I'm a "hypocrite".
Again: a personal attack ... involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself
Therefore it was both a "personal attack" and further a personal attack as part of an "ad hominem" logical fallacy.
Seems pretty plain to me.
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
