Which type of Ad Hominem is better?

Page 1 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2008, 11:50 pm

Does going against a mass of people with sweeping generalizations hurt any less than attacking a person on an individual basis?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

18 May 2008, 11:56 pm

Why can't we say both?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 May 2008, 12:10 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Why can't we say both?

What?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 May 2008, 1:38 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

What?

Neither suggests that both of these are bad. Both suggests that they can both provide a rip-roaring good time!

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 May 2008, 11:58 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

What?

Neither suggests that both of these are bad. Both suggests that they can both provide a rip-roaring good time!

I can see the end of logic, it is very close.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

19 May 2008, 1:45 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

What?

Both suggests that they can both provide a rip-roaring good time!

Yeah, that's why the 'Both' option is needed.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 May 2008, 1:48 pm

Just post it if you actually think "both" are good, so that I may add you to my mental ignore list.

sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

19 May 2008, 2:00 pm

Argument Ad Infinitum topic

:lol: I like iamnotaparakeet's answer.

_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 May 2008, 2:35 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I can see the end of logic, it is very close.

"Logic is dead. Logic remains dead. And we have killed it. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 May 2008, 2:53 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I can see the end of logic, it is very close.

Ooh, parable of the madman, I like it. Really Ben, there should have been more options on the poll. There are some times when ad hominem is called for, or at least useful. No, it's not a rigorous logically valid argument form, but if all arguments were than they would tend to be over pretty quickly.

I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 May 2008, 3:00 pm

Orwell wrote:

I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine.

There is a difference, though, between a personal attack and constructive criticism.

One builds up and the other tears down; this matters only if the person is worth more than the argument though. But if it matters more to win a debate in words than it is to help someone, ... do you see what I mean?

Also, if you think a person is beyond help, why start a flame war with them? What's the point?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 May 2008, 3:07 pm

Orwell wrote:

I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine.

I dunno, large groups could be fun too. But, you are right, individuals are better.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 May 2008, 3:11 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Orwell wrote:

I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine.

OK, maybe I should clarify: we had several debates over evolution recently. If you were to bring up Ben Stein, I would reject his arguments out of hand because he has demonstrated himself in the past to lack intellectual honesty. But it wouldn't be as reasonable to reject all creationist arguments in a similar manner (well, a case could be made that you could, but I won't). An individual can be rejected as a reliable source if they consistently show themselves to be unreliable. EG I tend to lend credence to AG's comments on economics, and ignore snake321 on politics. Argument from authority (the inverse of ad hominem) is not a valid argument form, but it can be useful if the authority is recognized as knowledgeable (I could quote Einstein if we were discussing physics) and ad hominem works the same way- I can reject an argument from someone on the basis that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Or, if you want to look at it another way: the post topic was "Which type of ad hominem is better?" "Better" is a qualitative statement and is logically equivalent to "less bad." If one is "worse" than the other must necessarily be "better." Since I would say attacking an entire group (think anti-semites, KKK, islamophobes, militant atheists who claim that all Christians are idiots etc all engage in this) is worse than attacking an individual (criticizing Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins/George W Bush/Michael Moore), ad hominem against an individual must be better than against a group.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

19 May 2008, 3:12 pm

Ad hominem is a fallacy because its use is an attempt at avoiding the actual argument.

Verbal abuse is morally questionable but logically neutral as long as it does not take the place of meaningful points.

Who is 'hurt' is not relevant to the ad hominem

_________________
* here for the nachos.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 May 2008, 3:13 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Orwell wrote:

I voted for individuals; lumping all of a group together is never justified, but going after a specific person is fine.

I dunno, large groups could be fun too. But, you are right, individuals are better.

Only if you're going to use them as a scapegoat. :wink:

"People in filthy, rat-infested cities are dying of plague." "It's because the Jews poisoned the wells! BURN THEM!! ! :twisted:

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 May 2008, 3:20 pm

twoshots wrote:

That is true and Orwell and I are both misusing the term.

And verbal abuse is fun if the other person deserves it.

Page 1 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Which type of Ad Hominem is better? Post Reply New Topic

Which type of Ad Hominem is better?