Are you like this face-to-face? page 6

160 posts

Flag Post

Which is why he’s wrong in this case. Thanks for the backup, vik.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

It depends on the poster really. If they have a reputation for only saying such things if they believe there is a grain of truth to it, then it is worth pausing and examining how you come across to others.

If they admit they are just trolling themselves, and most of their posts troll anyway, then there’s no point taking any character flaws they claim about anyone else, seriously.

And how would that not be ad hominem?

 
Flag Post

Its not an ad hominem because you’re not using an aspect of the poster to discount a rational argument. Rather you are recognising that they frequently use irrational insults in their posts, and as such these are not arguments that stand up to the light of day.

Since they commonly make arguments with no substence whatsoever, and rarely make arguments that are actually worth a damn, you can draw on previous experience with that poster and safely conclude the argument about the state of your person they are making, is actually not worth a damn.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Its not an ad hominem because you’re not using an aspect of the poster to discount a rational argument.

How is “this person frequently insults people” not an aspect of a person?

Rather you are recognising that they frequently use irrational insults in their posts, and as such these are not arguments that stand up to the light of day.

I still don’t see why I should consider an irrational insult when coming from somebody who doesn’t usually irrationally insult people.

Since they commonly make arguments with no substence whatsoever, and rarely make arguments that are actually worth a damn, you can draw on previous experience with that poster and safely conclude the argument about the state of your person they are making, is actually not worth a damn.

And that’s not evaluating the argument itself, but the person behind the argument. Isn’t that exactly what an ad hominem is about?

 
Flag Post

Basically the difference is an ad hominem is a besmirchment of their character you make against them, dismissing the argument they are making by making a post attacking their character and thus using their character to dismiss their argument.

In this case they are making an argument to directly target your character, without you making an argument for them to attack – they are solely doing this to attack you, not to address your argument. You either never made an argument, or they have addressed the argument you made elsewhere. So it is not part of a strategy to dismiss an argument, but straight out vitrol against you. This is what separates it from ad hominem.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Basically the difference is an ad hominem is a besmirchment of their character you make against them, dismissing the argument they are making by making a post attacking their character and thus using their character to dismiss their argument.

…which is exactly what we are discussing.

In this case they are making an argument to directly target your character, without you making an argument for them to attack – they are solely doing this to attack you, not to address your argument. You either never made an argument, or they have addressed the argument you made elsewhere. So it is not part of a strategy to dismiss an argument, but straight out vitrol against you. This is what separates it from ad hominem.

Why would an argument need to be part of a strategy to dismiss another argument in order for an ad hominem to be possible? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Because an ad hominem is only an ad hominem if its used to dismiss an argument you were making.

If you were not making an argument, or it was not framed to dismiss your argument based on your character than it is a simple attack on your character alone – a pure insult, or observation of how you put yourself across, unrelated to your argument.

I don’t know how I can make this any simpler.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

doesn’t matter if you call it an ad-hominem or not. in fact, didn’t Janton make an ad-hominem against other people first? so, if we’re already down to that level…

I don’t know if he did, I didn’t really read his wall of text. If he did, why not call him out on it instead of stooping to the same level?

you can’t defend argument A by saying that the counter argument is bad on the same grounds that argument A is bad. ísn’t much of a defence, is it?

When have I said you could?

but enough of this nonsense. “ah, that’s an ad hominem!”, “ah, that’s a Godwin’s!”. seriously, you guys are freaking annoying. stop trying to spam internet slogans when your out of original arguments. you’re not 12.

Edited: Stop trying to justify ad hominems, and I promise you to stop spamming that you’re justifying ad hominems. It’s that simple.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Because an ad hominem is only an ad hominem if its used to dismiss an argument you were making.

If you were not making an argument, or it was not framed to dismiss your argument based on your character than it is a simple attack on your character alone – a pure insult, or observation of how you put yourself across, unrelated to your argument.

I don’t know how I can make this any simpler.

Then if person A makes the argument that person B is a racist, if person B dismisses that by saying that person A is a racist, then that’s an ad hominem. No?

 
Flag Post

No, neither are making an ad hominem. Neither are using the insults as a means to dismiss an argument being made by the other outside of the actual insult – which is the job of an ad hominem. To discredit an argument not intended as an insult against another poster, by pointing out a perceived character flaw and then tearing into it.

So they’re just flinging insults back and forth.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

No, neither are making an ad hominem. Neither are using the insults as a means to dismiss an argument being made by the other. So they’re just flinging insults back and forth.

So it’s impossible to argue that someone is a racist?

 
Flag Post

No, it depends how much evidence you bring to the table – and again its based a lot on your reputation as a poster. If you’re not known for making baseless insults, it helps a great deal. But if you don’t wish to make it a personal attack, you would have to use thorough reasoning, and evidence behind explaining why someone is coming across as being racist. You would not make the claim that they are racist themselves unless they have repeated the same racist statements again and again on many different discussions – and even then you have solid evidence they themselves have provided to fall back on.

You are also then addressing the argument they are making by pointing out how the race issue has clouded their thinking, rather than simply flinging a throwaway insult. As such, the claim that they are racist actually addresses their entire core argument, as opposed to dismissing it without addressing it, which would be an ad hominem’s job.

Do you follow?

 
Flag Post

nope.
i dont talk to people irl
but i like to do this on the internet, it makes me feel better about myself. :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

No, it depends how much evidence you bring to the table – and again its based a lot on your reputation as a poster. If you’re not known for making baseless insults, it helps a great deal. But if you don’t wish to make it a personal attack, you would have to use thorough reasoning, and evidence behind explaining why someone is coming across as being racist. You would not make the claim that they are racist themselves unless they have repeated the same racist statements again and again on many different discussions – and even then you have solid evidence they themselves have provided to fall back on.

There are, as I see it, two possibilities. Either the person has some evidence to back up his claim, or s/he does not.

If there is no evidence whatsoever, I still don’t see why reputation should mean that I take someone’s critique of my person serious at all. If they are that decent person I know them to be, they should be able to support their claim.

If there is evidence, any evidence at all, then you should judge their claim based on that evidence, and not how they have acted in the past. Otherwise you will have commited ad hominem as far as I’m concerned.

You are also then addressing the argument they are making by pointing out how the race issue has clouded their thinking, rather than simply flinging a throwaway insult. As such, the claim that they are racist actually addresses their entire core argument, as opposed to dismissing it without addressing it, which would be an ad hominem’s job.

I disagree. If there is evidence for the claim, then it doesn’t matter how clouded their judgement is, the evidence needs to be adressed for its own value. If being a racist has clouded their judgement, then the evidence should be easily refuted without bringing their racism into the picture. Attacking their racism instead of attacking the evidence makes it an ad hominem.

 
Flag Post

Even if they have evidence to back it up, it is still an ad hominem if they use this claim against the nature of the poster to dismiss their argument. If they do not do this and address the argument elsewhere, then it is not being used as an ad hominem – it is simply an insult.

However, if the person is known for not making baseless claims, it likely means there is something to it, and it would be worth you examining your own posts to see if you actually do come across that way, is all I was saying.

Whereas if the person regularly trolls, there’s no point, just dismiss it out of hand as their usual trolling.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Even if they have evidence to back it up, it is still an ad hominem if they use this claim against the nature of the poster to dismiss their argument. If they do not do this and address the argument elsewhere, then it is not being used as an ad hominem – it is simply an insult.

I’m not arguing against that. I’m arguing about the truth value of the insult, and that dismissing it as false because it also fits the person making the insult is an ad hominem. If the insult itself is an ad hominem, the truth value doesn’t matter, an ad hominem is ridiculous even if it is true.

However, if the person is known for not making baseless claims, it likely means there is something to it, and it would be worth you examining your own posts to see if you actually do come across that way, is all I was saying.

Whereas if the person regularly trolls, there’s no point, just dismiss it out of hand as their usual trolling.

I really don’t agree like I’ve said before. No matter who you are, if you want me to take critique of my person seriously, at all, you need to back it up first.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

I really don’t agree like I’ve said before. No matter who you are, if you want me to take critique of my person seriously, at all, you need to back it up first.

Hey all, please pardon me if my response here is a weeebit “off target”….I really haven’t been following this thread for a day or so.

BUT, the quote above I think is rather obviously a very simple fact of life.

IT DOES MATTER who a person is!
If a doctor makes a “critique” about your health,,,
it might be a good idea to give a lot stronger heed to the “advice” than ya would a couple of 10 year olds playing “doctor”.

It matters if a person—just someone in general who is KNOWN BY YOU to be of reasonable & upright character—were to tell ya that IN THEIR OWN PERSONAL LIFE EXPERIENCES they have learned that (FOR THEM) venturing down a particular path really isn’t all that good of an idea. AND, just maybe…it wouldn’t likewise be any too good for you either.

Does one need to take ANY ADVICE//CRITICISM “seriously”?
FUCK NO.
Should they?
Well, THAT can depend upon a whooooole lot of factors.
Some of them are in your control,,,
some of them are going to be the results of factors that you have NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER over.

Forewarned is forearmed.
What harm is “criticism”?
Either it is accurate or it isn’t or it lies somewhere in between.

A person’s whole life is one loooooong process of being criticised.
It began when ya learned the word “NO” from your parents.
Did THEY need to “back it up”?

A person DOES NOT need to have “credentials” to GIVE advice//criticism.
An ability to “back it up” is a gift or service (for money) given to someone who shows a greater interest in and a hightened degree of further advice//criticism.

A person can view “unsolicited” advice as they would “junk mail”.
Just toss it in the shit can upon a mere cursory examination determining it to be such.
OR…ya just never know when a diamond can be found in a coal bin.
It certainly doesn’t hurt at all to keep that in mind when finding tidbits of information being sent your way.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

IT DOES MATTER who a person is!
If a doctor makes a “critique” about your health,,,
it might be a good idea to give a lot stronger heed to the “advice” than ya would a couple of 10 year olds playing “doctor”.

The difference between the doctor and the kids is that the doctor will back up his critique with information and evidence. If he doesn’t, he’s a crap doctor and I won’t listen to him.

There’s also a big reason why people get second opinions.

It matters if a person—just someone in general who is KNOWN BY YOU to be of reasonable & upright character—were to tell ya that IN THEIR OWN PERSONAL LIFE EXPERIENCES they have learned that (FOR THEM) venturing down a particular path really isn’t all that good of an idea. AND, just maybe…it wouldn’t likewise be any too good for you either.

If they have life experience, they can give evidence of that life experience, and they have backed their advice up.

Does one need to take ANY ADVICE//CRITICISM “seriously”?
FUCK NO.

My point exactly.

Should they?
Well, THAT can depend upon a whooooole lot of factors.

With the single biggest factor being if they can back their advice up with evidence or not.

A person’s whole life is one loooooong process of being criticised.
It began when ya learned the word “NO” from your parents.
Did THEY need to “back it up”?

Except that’s not critique, it’s an order from authority. There’s a difference.

A person DOES NOT need to have “credentials” to GIVE advice//criticism.

No, but then again, I don’t need credentials to ignore it either.

An ability to “back it up” is a gift or service (for money) given to someone who shows a greater interest in and a hightened degree of further advice//criticism.

And unless I’m given that gift, I don’t consider the criticism valid, at all.

A person can view “unsolicited” advice as they would “junk mail”.
Just toss it in the shit can upon a mere cursory examination determining it to be such.
OR…ya just never know when a diamond can be found in a coal bin.
It certainly doesn’t hurt at all to keep that in mind when finding tidbits of information being sent your way.

When you get spam mail saying there’s a Nigerian prince wanting to give you $8 million, do you answer it? It could be true.

 
Flag Post

ok, OK, I’m sorry, but I have to weigh in here.

This has gone on far enough and the ignorance is exhausting.

This is an ad hominem. I admit it is not well circularized on the internet, but this is the original meaning of the term. If you don’t quite get it, it means that, for example, if I am to criticize Karma, I would say something like ‘leaving aside karma’s ridiculous syntax, that does nothing to further explication, I am unable to see the point of his argument."

When I do that, I am ironically criticizing his ‘appearance’ (style) as an explanation for misunderstanding. I don’t ‘get it’ because something ineffable to him blocks me from understanding. ‘A nigger’ may block me from understanding black rights by virtue that I suppose that I don’t understand him because he is too primitive to allow communication.

That is an ad hominem. It is an ironic gesture, and unless used appropriately, is frequently offensive, hence the latter example. If used correctly, it facilitates as an attack on the former’s use of language (see former), and is not to be taken as a breach of Decorum

Now, what vika is trying to explain is how one might appeal to character without being an ad hominem. So, There are three main branches of appeals: Logic, Emotion, and Character. Character falls under the one we want. Character dignifies the person presenting the argument. Vika presents me, in this thread, as a jerk, a misogynist, and a homophobe. From here, if we are to properly be persuaded by her argument, we must be persuaded, not that her appeals are valid, but that her character is valid to make those appeals. If they are so, she may press forward in her argument, by using all the proofs available at her disposal; if not, she may not. That is the difference.

Now, I grant you, you may not find those character appeals substantive. Without putting too fine a point on it, too damn bad. Around the nineteenth century, the logos pathway became dominant, thanks largely to positivists, and discounted pathos and ethos. They were defeated a few decades later, but they did lasting damage in the meantime. A person should be judged on emotion: to defend an argument; via their sincerity and the sincerity of their witnesses. A person should be judged on their character; that of their judge and the accused, and their witnesses: Are they levelling a false claim? Their must be testimony to support that the person is arguing falsely, or, on the other hand, arguing truthfully. Examination of a person’s character judges whether they are reliable to testify. This has carried over to the modern date. If a man is accused of killing his accomplices, the lone survivor bears unique testimony on his crimes. But, conversely, to appeal to the modern system, that ousted criminal doesn’t bear sole charge on his crimes.

The major problem here is that logos has become the defining virtue, and whatever is illogical becomes wrong. Not so. It’s logical, but only if you follow the correct path. Logic is not universal; it merely pretends to be to save argument. The positivists claimed otherwise, which is why we are in our current state of confusion.

To settle up: I don’t blame Omega Doom for accusing me of bad character. I have indeed been guilty of it before, and more recently, on the evening in question, very guilty. I accept his verdict, but not my own understanding: that the anti-theists before me acted badly and should not given any kind of favorable outcome; they deserved the outcome they got, and admitting guilt in one aspect is not comparable to denying guilt in another.

As to vika’s accusations I suggest she is indeed guilty of false testimony, of bad ethos. She accused me of misogyny on the same day that I had a very strong feminist post. She’s guilty of trying to side-step the main problem in order to accuse me of another which I’m not guilty for. The main problem is, of course, that I accused her of trolling. I did so under the full auspices that what she was doing was wrong, side-stepping an important issue in order to claim ‘professional detachment’. It’s wrong and it’s insulting as long as she keeps it up, and I want no part in her experiments with other posters.

That’s all I have to say, except that I used karma as an example, but he himself has no wrong or right in the dispute.

Well, one last thing. I am sure you’ve noticed that my lecture quality has been rather condescending. Please believe that I would not be so…if not for the underlying fact that I clearly know a fuck load more than any of you about rhetorical argumentation, and that listening to your frankly ridiculous back and forth claims about how ‘this’ is ad hominem’ or ‘this’ isn’t, is so aggravating that, quite frankly, going apart from the usual rules of argumentation, i don’t think I can count any of you as peers worthy of judging me, except karma, and Omega Doom, which, I suppose, should be found fair, given neither participated overmuch in the rhetorical idiocy that preceded me, also that both are in some ways, defendants or proxies to my guilt, and perhaps more importantly, neither care for me much. I’ll accept any punishment short of outright ban, my character to serve as oath.

TL;DR?

If I call Karma an old fucking bastard, or OD a naive, retarded dutchman, those are not ad hominems. They are mere insults that an educated person might take as they like. It is only if I use a particularly adjective to mean something, like, Karma, you are so old that you are incapable of writing anything coherent, or, Omega, your dutchman status excludes you from saying anything worthwhile so to get on with my point, THEN

If karma takes nothing of his age, or defends his writing style as ‘unique and progressive’ (I’m just guessing), then the ad hominem is useless, both to himself and others. If, on the other hand, I suggest that Omega Doom’s Dutchman status prevents him from understanding the full scope of say, islamism, then he must prove how that is a ridiculous claim. YES, it is not enough to apply the simple syllogism to prove me wrong, he has to actually do it. But once he has done it, I’m unarmed. And he can demand whatever concession he likes, which is much better than when i seem to have a fighting chance.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:


As to vika’s accusations I suggest she is indeed guilty of false testimony, of bad ethos. She accused me of misogyny on the same day that I had a very strong feminist post.

I hate to contribute to this increasingly off-topic discussion, but just because one has “a very strong feminist post” doesn’t mean one is any less guilty of misogyny. For instance, let’s say I just delivered a rousing speech in support of LGBT rights. If I then spit on someone’s shoes because they’re a homosexual, I’m still accountable for my actions. Of course, if she was wrong, then it is a non-issue. Still, I hope you understand that the reason “I had a very strong feminist post” does not refute an act of misogyny.

In response to the original post, religion tends to be a topic that people are deeply attached to. Thus, it is very easy for debates to fly out of control and spiral in to flame wars. While I am an agnostic, I think that every viewpoint is capable of descending to that kind of “I’m-right-you’re-wrong-just-admit-it-already” kind of attitude—even agnostics with viewpoints similar to my own. Hell, I know I tend to get a little too passionate when it comes to certain subjects. What’s more important is not to let the fact that people disagree get to you. Religious debate can be frustrating, but the best moral dialogue I’ve had is with people who are interested in coming to a better conclusion about the world; not necessarily trying to convince someone that the one person’s ideas are right. That’s more of an argument, since the opposing sides are set out to prove that they’re right and the opponent is wrong on some level, as opposed to actually contributing to a greater collective understanding.

Unfortunately, the internet creates an environment where trolls are easily able to degrade conversations to that point of no return. If a debate you have with someone is so frustrating, it’s probably better to just walk away. It’s not easy to do so sometimes, but at least you avoided an encounter which was most likely going to be fruitless anyway.

 
Flag Post

I am a christian. But honestly I can see it going hand and hand. With religious and athiests being tolerant and intolerant with others’ opinions and viewpoints on certain things. Obviously we are going to disagree on all different things. Unfortunately, there are some religious people who will go crazy on athiests as well as athiests doing the same.There are things I will agree and disagree with christians (or other religions) as well as athiests; but me personally, I will acknowledge one’s disagreement(s) with me and carry on. Because I’m aware we’re all not going to agree on everything.

 
Flag Post

oh brother. my posts get deleted for THAT. fuck you. i’m out. bye.

oh, just so you know, if i had a way to delete my account i would have. i’m not coming back, ever. these mods are fucking idiots.

good job exploiting that, Janton. you fucking hypcrite.

one last thing, i don’t know if any of you SD heavy-weight regulars noticed that, but everyone else on this websites hates every one of you. I was probably the least impopular of all of us. just so you know.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

oh brother. my posts get deleted for THAT. fuck you. i’m out. bye.

oh, just so you know, if i had a way to delete my account i would have. i’m not coming back, ever. these mods are fucking idiots.

Kthxbai.

good job exploiting that, Janton. you fucking hypcrite.

Yeah I think he already settled that.

one last thing, i don’t know if any of you SD heavy-weight regulars noticed that, but everyone else on this websites hates every one of you.

I used to be on the ass end of the ass end of the forums, so yes, I know how people not in SD view SD.

I was probably the least impopular of all of us. just so you know.

Yes, you were the cool kid of the bunch, always more popular than the rest.

You do realize we’re going to idealogically beat the crap and ego (respectively) out of you, right?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator