If the comment was along the lines of: I understand IF you are hurt and angry, it would be different and not presumptuous. But that he continues with: “But you have to understand…” Like he is talking to a child, confirms the interpretation of an ad hominem IMO."
But thanks for pointing out a possibly poorly worded good intention. But the way he wrote it, it looks like an ad hominem to me.
You don’t just get to call any words that you don’t like, or even words directly attacking you, an ad hominem. A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person making the argument INSTEAD OF the actual content of the argument. “Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot” is an ad hominem. What the other commenter said to you is not. Note that people claiming “ad hominem” on statements that are not are sometimes said to be committing an “ad hominem fallacy fallacy.”
Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said. Did you even read the post I linked to? You’re wrong; it’s cool though, we all make mistakes. Accept it and move on.
I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.
Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot
That’s the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.
And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I’m uninformed from living in a bubble.
Yet I’m the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to “explain” that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I’m aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn’t aware of that?
None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can’t.
But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”, and you live in a Bubble.
So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion? Because that’s EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It’s an even bigger ad hominem when put together.
So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion?
I’m not passing any judgement on whether anything is an “OK comment.” In fact, on the topic being discussed, I think I agree with you more than the person you’re replying to. As I said though, I only stopped by to comment on your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem, because it’s super fucking annoying to me when people throw that term around when they don’t know what they’re doing.
you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”
THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT, no matter how good or bad as it might be, and no matter how much it is surrounded by words that you view as insulting. In fact, if anyone is resorting to an ad hominem here, it’s you, by attacking their character and dancing around the actual meat of their argument (again, as good or bad as it might be). Therefore I hope you agree with me that the other commenter did not commit an ad hominem fallacy. Or did you not read the link I posted yet?
your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem
I’m surprised you still consider it fallacious?
THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT,
Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.
Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using “you too” arguments.
Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.
Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using “you too” arguments.
Cool, now we’re getting somewhere. I agree with you! I’ll ask you for a THIRD time, have you read the article that I shared a link to? Because if you do, you’ll see why what you describe here is not an ad hominem, no matter how condescending, presumptuous, or rude the commenter might be.
I don’t get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:
A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”
I don’t see how that’s relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy as in flawed use of actual logic like boolean logic. And obviously explaining how and argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem. That’s normal discourse to progress on the issue.
But this part:
Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.
I believe I have CLEARLY shown that the comment “you are hurt and angry” is exactly that.
If it’s not an argument based on his (wrong) interpretation of my person, then what is it?
From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:
Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument.
In this case me being emotional.
If he writes, you are wrong because you have a big nose. That’s an obvious ad hominem. You are wrong because you are being emotional is an equally obvious ad hominem. They are the exact same fallacy as writing you are wrong because you are an idiot.
He/She doesn’t understand anything, he/she doesn’t know me.
If the comment was along the lines of: I understand IF you are hurt and angry, it would be different and not presumptuous. But that he continues with: “But you have to understand…” Like he is talking to a child, confirms the interpretation of an ad hominem IMO."
But thanks for pointing out a possibly poorly worded good intention. But the way he wrote it, it looks like an ad hominem to me.
You don’t just get to call any words that you don’t like, or even words directly attacking you, an ad hominem. A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person making the argument INSTEAD OF the actual content of the argument. “Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot” is an ad hominem. What the other commenter said to you is not. Note that people claiming “ad hominem” on statements that are not are sometimes said to be committing an “ad hominem fallacy fallacy.”
https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
Which is EXACTLY what he did. And I even explained that in my previous post.
Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said. Did you even read the post I linked to? You’re wrong; it’s cool though, we all make mistakes. Accept it and move on.
I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.
That’s the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.
And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I’m uninformed from living in a bubble.
Yet I’m the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to “explain” that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I’m aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn’t aware of that?
None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can’t.
But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”, and you live in a Bubble.
So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion? Because that’s EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It’s an even bigger ad hominem when put together.
I’m not passing any judgement on whether anything is an “OK comment.” In fact, on the topic being discussed, I think I agree with you more than the person you’re replying to. As I said though, I only stopped by to comment on your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem, because it’s super fucking annoying to me when people throw that term around when they don’t know what they’re doing.
THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT, no matter how good or bad as it might be, and no matter how much it is surrounded by words that you view as insulting. In fact, if anyone is resorting to an ad hominem here, it’s you, by attacking their character and dancing around the actual meat of their argument (again, as good or bad as it might be). Therefore I hope you agree with me that the other commenter did not commit an ad hominem fallacy. Or did you not read the link I posted yet?
I’m surprised you still consider it fallacious?
Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.
Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using “you too” arguments.
Cool, now we’re getting somewhere. I agree with you! I’ll ask you for a THIRD time, have you read the article that I shared a link to? Because if you do, you’ll see why what you describe here is not an ad hominem, no matter how condescending, presumptuous, or rude the commenter might be.
I don’t get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:
I don’t see how that’s relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy as in flawed use of actual logic like boolean logic. And obviously explaining how and argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem. That’s normal discourse to progress on the issue.
But this part:
I believe I have CLEARLY shown that the comment “you are hurt and angry” is exactly that. If it’s not an argument based on his (wrong) interpretation of my person, then what is it?
From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
In this case me being emotional.
If he writes, you are wrong because you have a big nose. That’s an obvious ad hominem. You are wrong because you are being emotional is an equally obvious ad hominem. They are the exact same fallacy as writing you are wrong because you are an idiot.