Wanda Sykes...

[Snorri1234]

Unless you can demonstrate that my understanding of what an ad hominem attack is is wrong instead of just attacking me by saying "no you don't understand" you are now guilty of an ad hominem fallacy as well.

[GabonX]

The only things relevant to a discussion are the facts of the issue. An "argument against the man" as opposed to an argument against their position is ad hominem.

Yes, I do know what an ad hominem attack is, and nobody has been able to demonstrate otherwise. Every claim that I do not understand what it is which has not been substantiated is an ad hominem attack in and of itself.

it's not ad hominem if it is relevant to the discussion.Rarely do you make comments which are relevant to the discussion you don't know what ad hominem is and that is very important when discussing ad hominem.I have demonstrated that I do and you have yet to refute anything I've said with anything beyond the intellectual equivalent of "nuh ahh!!!" it is also not incumbent upon me to disprove every baseless claim made against meYes it is. If you make a claim it falls upon you to support it. If someone else makes a claim and supports it it falls upon you to disprove it.

in conclusion you are an enormous clodad hominem

[SultanOfSurreal]

THIS THREAD IS AWESOME

i think it proves once and for all that conservatives truly are the most delicate flowers in the political world

[GabonX]

Unless you can demonstrate that my understanding of what an ad hominem attack is is wrong instead of just attacking me by saying "no you don't understand" you are now guilty of an ad hominem fallacy as well.

If you make referance to a debater rather than their debate, nine or more times out of ten you have committed an ad hominem attack. Prove me wrong if I'm wrong. You've yet to actually try to explain why what I'm saying is not the case. Emoticons don't count.

When personal insults are included in a forum of debate this is the definition of ad hominem.

[SultanOfSurreal]

The only things relevant to a discussion are the facts of the issue. An "argument against the man" as opposed to an argument against their position is ad hominem.

Yes, I do know what an ad hominem attack is, and nobody has been able to demonstrate otherwise. Every claim that I do not understand what it is which has not been substantiated is an ad hominem attack in and of itself.

lol

quickpoll: is gabonx really this dumb or does he think that by pretending not to realize how incredibly wrong he is, he will somehow dig himself out of this hole he's made

[GabonX]

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

=Bull Shit

This is the basis of Sultan's debate strategy here.

[SultanOfSurreal]

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

i am truly in awe of your inability to understand even the most simple things

bravo

[KLOBBER]

Gabon is starting to remind me of KLOBBER. Don't worry about the things that show you to be wrong. Stay the course.

The word "also" does not prove me wrong.

You're statement here is actually more applicable towards yourself.

That's true.

[GabonX]

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

i am truly in awe of your inability to understand even simple things

bravo

GabonX is person A who claimes that Sultan frequently committs the ad homnem fallacy
GabonX allegedly does not understand simple things
GabonX's claim is false



You need to DEMONSTRATE what you're saying is true. A statement or claim without any support is worthless. If people could just state things without supporting them then quite litterally anything would qualify as valid regardless of whether or not it is true.

[SultanOfSurreal]

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

i am truly in awe of your inability to understand even simple things

bravo

GabonX is person A who claimes that Sultan frequently committs the ad homnem fallacy
GabonX allegedly does not understand simple things
GabonX's claim is false

i am going to make this as easy for you as humanly possible and it will be done in this hideously stupid syllogistic format though i doubt you will understand even that

gabonx claims i frequently commit the ad hominem fallacy
gabonx is misusing the term "ad hominem"
gabonx's claim is false

THEREFORE gabonx does not understand simple things. also his mother is a whore

[GabonX]

I am not misusing the term ad hominem, you just don't like that it applies to you so aptly.

If I am misusing it HOW am I misusing it?

Once again, the definition is as follows:

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

[KLOBBER]

Sultan is right. What he has posted above is not an ad hominem logical fallacy.

[F1fth]

I think the point people are trying to get across is that he is saying you're stupid because of your beliefs, not that you're beliefs are wrong because you are stupid, which is ad-hominem. He's not using his assertion that you are stupid as evidence in his argument. He's coming to that conclusion based on what you are saying.

Further clarification:
Ad-hominem:
You are stupid, therefore your beliefs are wrong.

Not ad-hominem (Sultan's logic):
[Evidence], therefore your beliefs are wrong, therefore you are stupid.

where you substitute [Evidence] for a legitimate claim that supports that your beliefs are wrong, such as the fact that you don't know exactly what a ad-hominem attack is. I would like to insist that I will not comment on the validity any such claims in this discussion, however.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I am not misusing the term ad hominem, you just don't like that it applies to you so aptly.

If I am misusing it HOW am I misusing it?

Once again, the definition is as follows:

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

yes you just keep on quoting that one paragraph from wikipedia, and don't ever ever read anything else, especially not the rest of the very same article

[GabonX]

and why is that?

Rather than explain how I have misused the term he has chosen to claim that I do not understand what it means.

How is this not an example?

[SultanOfSurreal]

and why is that?

Rather than explain how I have misused the term he has chosen to claim that I do not understand what it means.

How is this not an example?

the claim is relevant to the argument. if anything i am simply guilty of not explaining exactly why the claim is true, but it's much more to watch you flail about like this than spend 20 minutes writing 500 words you will never read or understand

[F1fth]

and why is that?

Rather than explain how I have misused the term he has chosen to claim that I do not understand what it means.

How is this not an example?

I think the point people are trying to get across is that he is saying you're stupid because of your beliefs, not that you're beliefs are wrong because you are stupid, which is ad-hominem. He's not using his assertion that you are stupid as evidence in his argument. He's coming to that conclusion based on what you are saying.

Further clarification:
Ad-hominem:
You are stupid, therefore your beliefs are wrong.

Not ad-hominem (Sultan's logic):
[Evidence], therefore your beliefs are wrong, therefore you are stupid.

where you substitute [Evidence] for a legitimate claim that supports that your beliefs are wrong, such as the fact that you don't know exactly what a ad-hominem attack is. I would like to insist that I will not comment on the validity any such claims in this discussion, however.

[Snorri1234]

Unless you can demonstrate that my understanding of what an ad hominem attack is is wrong instead of just attacking me by saying "no you don't understand" you are now guilty of an ad hominem fallacy as well.

If you make referance to a debater rather than their debate, nine or more times out of ten you have committed an ad hominem attack.

GOD f*ck SHIT NO THAT IS NOT THE CASE! If I call Rush Limbaugh a fat fucking idiot because of his beliefs I am not commiting a fallacy.

It is so fundamentally ridiculous to say that "no you don't understand" makes me guilty of an ad hominem that I honestly can't be sure I want to continue this.

Prove me wrong if I'm wrong. You've yet to actually try to explain why what I'm saying is not the case. Emoticons don't count.

It is only an ad hominem if it is an argument. If I call you an idiot because you believe in God, it's not an ad hominem, if I call you an idiot and therefore say that believing in god is wrong I am commiting an ad hominem.

An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

It is in fact so fucking true that the adding of "also" to "you're an idiot" makes it not an ad hominem that I'm quite frankly surprised that you still don't understand that. It's not: "You're an idiot therefore you're wrong", it's: "You're wrong because of so and so, and you're an idiot".

The latter is logically sound.

When personal insults are included in a forum of debate this is the definition of ad hominem.

PERSONAL INSULT IS NOT THE SAME AS AN AD HOMINEM!

[MeDeFe]

Structure of a typical ad hominem fallacy:

A is a despicable person.
Therefor A's claims are wrong.

[GabonX]

yes you just keep on quoting that one paragraph from wikipedia, and don't ever ever read anything else, especially not the rest of the very same article

I have read the article and I know what an ad hominem attack it.

Rather than explaining why making personal attacks in a debate towards the debater (argument against the man, the definition of ad hominem ) as opposed to debating the merrits of their argument is not an ad hominem attack, you keep stating that I did not read the article, that I do not understand ad hominem, and that I am stupid.

Rather than explain why I am wrong you keep on attacking me personally in order to discredit my argument. This is the definition of ad hominem and that's most of what you do here.

[KLOBBER]

Face it, Gabby, you are just plain wrong about this.

They have made it abundantly clear what the definition of the term is, and just in the last 5 minutes, I've seen that you misunderstand it. Admit your defeat, and move on.

[StiffMittens]

yes you just keep on quoting that one paragraph from wikipedia, and don't ever ever read anything else, especially not the rest of the very same article

I have read the article and I know what an ad hominem attack it.

Rather than explaining why making personal attacks in a debate towards the debater (argument against the man, the definition of ad hominem ) as opposed to debating the merrits of their argument is not an ad hominem attack, you keep stating that I did not read the article, that I do not understand ad hominem, and that I am stupid.

Rather than explain why I am wrong you keep on attacking me personally in order to discredit my argument. This is the definition of ad hominem and that's most of what you do here.

Maybe you read the Wikipedia article, but it doesn't look like you read (or perhaps just didn't understand) Sultan's posts. Because what I saw was Sultan explaining why your argument was wrong and then personally attacking you just for fun.

[Timminz]

I'm thinking of starting a "What is written" to "What GabonX reads" dictionary.

you're stupid = you're right

also = due to the fact that

I'm sure we can think of more.

edit- I think I've found the problem. Gabon appears to be assuming that all things written here, are part of a debate, when in actuality there is a fair bit of opinion thrown in. Now, if these opinions were being expressed as reasoning ("you're wrong because you're stupid"), he would be correct in calling them ad hominem, but since they are being expressed as separate statements ("you're wrong, and you're stupid"), I think we've short-circuited his processor.

[GabonX]

GOD f*ck SHIT NO THAT IS NOT THE CASE! If I call Rush Limbaugh a fat fucking idiot because of his beliefs I am not commiting a fallacy.
That's true, unless you are having a debate over the merrits of his opinions. If you were arguing that Limbaugh was wrong and part of your debate was that he is "fat fucking idiot " hence he is wrong then this is ad hominem
It is so fundamentally ridiculous to say that "no you don't understand" makes me guilty of an ad hominem that I honestly can't be sure I want to continue this.
No it isn't. When you include personal insults in a debate the reason for them is that you are trying to diminish the person's credibility. Hence when personal insults and most other personal comments are included in a debate they are almost always ad hominum attacks.

Prove me wrong if I'm wrong. You've yet to actually try to explain why what I'm saying is not the case. Emoticons don't count.

It is only an ad hominem if it is an argument. If I call you an idiot because you believe in God, it's not an ad hominem, if I call you an idiot and therefore say that believing in god is wrong I am commiting an ad hominem.
If you are having a debate with some one and you call them an idiot you are trying to diminish their credibility. Yes, when you call some one an idiot, if the dialouge is included in the context of a debate it is most definately an ad hominem attack.

There is no reason to include personal insults in a debate about God.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

It is in fact so fucking true that the adding of "also" to "you're an idiot" makes it not an ad hominem that I'm quite frankly surprised that you still don't understand that.
The reason he called me an idiot is because he wants to diminish my credibility, hence it is ad hominem. Regardless, the sentence before this was also an ad hominem attack.
It's not: "You're an idiot therefore you're wrong", it's: "You're wrong because of so and so, and you're an idiot".

The latter is logically sound.

The first argument consists of only an ad hominem attack. The second argument consists of a rational debate followed by an ad hominem attack as a personal insult which is not related to the topic at hand is being included in the context of the debate.

When personal insults are included in a forum of debate this is the definition of ad hominem.

PERSONAL INSULT IS NOT THE SAME AS AN AD HOMINEM!

When an insult is included in a debate, the purpose of this is to discredit the person. It is an attack on the man and is absolutely an ad hominem attack.

[KLOBBER]

Wrong, Gabby.