Ad Hominem & You: 3 Things You'll Be Perplexed And Amazed By On A Forum

[Xant]

Sup, losers. What's shaking? We begin.

The ad hominem fallacy; one of the most misused terms on the internet and the favorite fallback of certain delicate types. I have noticed a disturbing trend on this here forum, and so I have decided to take action to correct the course of this ship and to set everything right in the world once more with this public service announcement.

What is it? It's a logical fallacy. What is it not? It's not a shield against insults or personal attacks.

Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those crying out "ad hominem!" -- since they try to dismiss their opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. And as the shuttlecock said to the battledore: mistakes don't travel alone, they hunt in packs. Those who commit this fallacy - the ad hominem fallacy while accusing others of it - are typically guilty of an even worse fallacy: the fallacious belief that blurting out an impressive-sounding Latin term gives one a decisive edge in an argument.

What do I mean when I say it's a logical fallacy? Well, I'm glad you asked. It means that there is a flaw in the logic: something stated does not logically follow from the premise. This flaw can be expressed in a standard logic system. But how does ad hominem fit into this? Let us entertain an example.

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q

This is a valid, logical argument. What happens if you add insults to it, without making it ad hominem?

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q, you fucking retard.

This is still a perfectly good and valid logical argument. The insult does nothing to hinder the argument.

What would a real ad hominem look like?

If P then Q
P
You're a retard, therefore Q

The logic itself is flawed, but it's important to note that even logically flawed arguments can still be true, it's just that their truth-value is not proven by said argument.

As often as not, insults are not presented as arguments or supporting evidence -- they exist outside the logic, without engaging it, and thus they, too, do not constitute an ad hominem fallacy. For example:

Sam: If P then Q, P, therefore Q.
Bob: You're an idiot.

This assertion is made not in relation to the logic presented, but outside it. Not an ad hominem fallacy.

In conclusion, we've learned the important distinction between engaging with an argument within the logical construct and engaging with the person presenting it outside the logical construct. The insult noises made have no more bearing, for better or worse, when it comes to argument, than someone eating an omelette or making a few impressive dance moves. These things do not interact.

I leave to you a helpful quick chart; may it serve you well.

--------------------------------------------------------
NOT AD HOMINEM
- You're wrong
- You're stupid
- You're stupid because you're wrong
--------------------------------------------------------
AD HOMINEM
- You're wrong because you're stupid
--------------------------------------------------------

[pogosan]

[Kafein]

Fighting the good fight Xant. It is sad to think that despite your best efforts, most people will still be wrong because most people are stupid, and stupid people have difficulties formulating coherent arguments.

That said, allow me to add that one should not mix logical arguments and simple opinions or other statements that lack a truth value. If a used car salesman tells you he's going out of business if he sells you a car for cheaper than what he's asking, it's sensible to question his honesty, because he's a used car salesman.

[Xant]

That said, allow me to add that one should not mix logical arguments and simple opinions or other statements that lack a truth value. If a used car salesman tells you he's going out of business if he sells you a car for cheaper than what he's asking, it's sensible to question his honesty, because he's a used car salesman.

Yes, indeed, there are correct uses for the ad hominem "fallacy" in actual conversations. They can help with Bayesian updating in certain cases. But they still prove little.

[Asheram]

Damn I thought this was going to be a thread about how to add visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 to your favorite recipes.

[Gravoth_iii]

Xunt lives to argue, and now teaches us how to do it properly too. Feels like xunt has become less xunt and more xant recently, is finlands economy stabilising possibly?

[Grytviken]

I don't agree with any of this, therefore xant is racist

[Angantyr]

nasis

[Grytviken]

nasis

uh oh, hey jimmy

[Grytviken]

Is this a good example Xant?

[Leshma]

Hmm let's see. I decided to troll Oberyn. Called him natzee for half an hour. Don't recall if we were discussing something, throwing arguments at each other. I believe it was just me calling him natzee. I believed he was a dick, yet didn't have any proper arguments to back it up so I went taunting route. Doesn't that make it ad hominem?

However, years have passed. Many discussion happened, arguments tossed around. It appears that Oberyn is indeed sharing some political beliefs with natzees. Therefore I was kinda right, even though it was shot in the dark.

My question is, how can you tell valid argument from lucky guess? Both come out as result of brain activity. Are you sure that logical thinking is always superior to human instinct? That is more efficient? Is accuracy of result that important to us, even if sometimes it can take a lot longer than acting upon a hunch? Have you ever thought that trying to quantize everything might be wrong way? Does every action we take has to be split into tiny parts and be analyzed?

I mean it works on Internet, because you are not physically engaging other people, so you're safe from certain scenarios. But if you're having argument and while you do your logic thing, other dude decides to act based upon his inner self and punch you so hard your nose starts to bleed and you black-out, possibly losing some of your precious brain cells. What if it ends as brain injury? What have your logic brought good to you in such situation.

No wonder wussies want us to live inside the machine, where there is no "irrational" violence and similar actions. They want to be in full control by just using one part of their body and using always the same way.

[Xant]

Hmm let's see. I decided to troll Oberyn. Called him natzee for half an hour. Don't recall if we were discussing something, throwing arguments at each other. I believe it was just me calling him natzee. I believed he was a dick, yet didn't have any proper arguments to back it up so I went taunting route. Doesn't that make it ad hominem?

No, that makes you an asshole.

[Grytviken]

Didn't you Murricuntz know that Apollo space program was started in Bosnian mountains, under Yugoslavian supervision, and was later sold by Marshal Tito to John F. Kennedy in exchange for protection against USSR and huge funds you gave us for couple decades so we can live Greek style, doing jack shit while having great salaries?

Therefore I claim that intelligence can't grow on American soil, it has to be imported. Otherwise natives would find a way to deal with Europeans. They just weren't smart enough. American soil can't produce intelligent life form, it's a fact!

I think ad-hominems account for 50% of your natural brain functioning capacity.

[Leshma]

Shitposting is ad hominem? It is very close to 100%, not 50%. When surrounded by shit, best you can do is try to blend in.

[Bronto]

I didn't read this because you used too many words.

(click to show/hide)

#gottem