Your Argument Sucks

Your source clearly defines multiple variations of ad hominem which this blog post would seem to discount their existance.

Until you reconcile this I wouldn't be so upset about those nine letters being thrown around.

You've been poking at this the whole time, so I'll bite. All of the variations of ad hominem attacks listed on that wiki page fall under the broad definition that I posted in the OP.

Well then we're good considering those instances fall under that spectrum. Carry on!

I think when most people say "ad hominem" what they really want to say is "attacks on someone's character". More than a mere 'insult', but not quite 'ad hominem' since they're not really making a point.

Yeah Myth thinks everything is an ad hominem when you call him out on his stupidity.

IYIyth, do me a favour and don't put words in my mouth. While I do think your arguments are dumb, while I do think that you're just doing it for the show to fit into some sort of "omg look at me im stikin it to da man" crowd, I was merely pointing out that you using "omg ad hominem" every other post is tiring. And also wrong.

I'm guessing you're going to spin this post into some OOC attack or ad hominem so have fun! You're free to disagree with me and remain wrong.

Well then we're good considering those instances fall under that spectrum. Carry on!

If the different categories of ad hominem on the wiki page fall under the definition in the OP, then the definitions of those categories are useless for anything other than classification. If something can be proven to not exist within a set, it by default can't exist in any subset.

So, in order to continue your claim that either of your examples are indeed ad hominem you must do either of the following:

A) Explain how your examples fit within the definition in the OP, or

B) Provide a credible definition of ad hominem that fits your examples but does not fall under the definition I provided.

You may also attempt to find some error in the logic I have presented, but I'm sure you will find that it is quite sound.

Yeah Myth thinks everything is an ad hominem when you call him out on his stupidity.

I get more fun out of the game knowing people who respond like this actually typed a sentence for my amusement more than any other part of it.

Seriously, thank you.

Well then we're good considering those instances fall under that spectrum. Carry on!

If the different categories of ad hominem on the wiki page fall under the definition in the OP, then the definitions of those categories are useless for anything other than classification. If something can be proven to not exist within a set, it by default can't exist in any subset.

So, in order to continue your claim that either of your examples are indeed ad hominem you must do either of the following:

A) Explain how your examples fit within the definition in the OP, or

B) Provide a credible definition of ad hominem that fits your examples but does not fall under the definition I provided.

You may also attempt to find some error in the logic I have presented, but I'm sure you will find that it is quite sound.

Your argument is based on the premise that your definition correctly identifies the cases which you've presumably made your point upon. You do not acknowledge that a variation of an ad hominem argument (titled and defined by your own source: Abusive ad hominem.) can not be an ad hominem because it does not fit the definition of "Ad hominem," alone. If that was true then it is likely equally upsetting to you that people interchangeably use the word brew to identify tea, coffee, or beer or to create mischief.

But more to the point, if something is a variation of something it means it is varied. It is by definition diverse in that there are different sub sets that do not share the same definition but are all related of and to the same thing. By definition I have presented the burden of proof that you have wished for and you have not denied that those posts fit those definitions as variances of an ad hominem argument.

With this logic http://en.wikipedia....i/Streptococcus we must be equally be enraged that people who claim they have Strept throat do not specify which variation of the species is responsible for it. I would have a hard time seeing a medical doctor accept the logic that someone whom has the strept throat variation (S. pyogenes ) that they do not in fact have Streptococcus because the Streptococcus definition from Wikipedia does not indicate whether these variations can be alpha, beta or non hemolytic and therefore with their broader definitions are actually defined separately. But I digress.

You're trying to actually argue for better reasoning, not logic, in this instance because logically your argument has an illicit premise that these variations are not actually what they are defined as. The reason argument could be fun but that's not what you have intended to argue here, "literally."

And also wrong.

See, that's what we're debating.

You're free to step in whenever you feel like you have something to contribute and I'll be waiting.

(The first step might be supporting your argument with something other than ridicule, which actually doesn't help your argument but detracts from it.)

Myth, you misunderstood my point.

Just as any variation of Streptococcus must meet the criteria of Streptococcus in general, if a bacteria does not meet the criteria of being Streptococcus in general, then it by default cannot be any of its variations. You do not need to test against the criteria of each variation to confirm this.

Apply this logic to ad hominems. All variations of an ad hominem must first meet the criteria of being an ad hominem, which I posted in the OP. Unless the definition of "abusive ad hominem" is inconsistent with the broad definition, only the broad definition needs to be tested against in order to determine "ad hominem?"

In order for the examples you brought up to be considered ad hominem attacks, at least one of two things must be true:

A) The examples you brought up fit the criteria of the broad definition, or

B) The broad definition of ad hominem and the specific definition of abusive ad hominem are inconsistent

If you can prove either of these points to be true, I will concede the point. If you cannot prove either of these points, then you don't have anything to argue about. You can also try to find flaw in my inference, but again I'm confident you won't find any.

Edit:

By the way, if you want to argue that a subset doesn't need to fit all the criteria of its superset you must think that dogs are a valid subset of cats.

Cat: 4 legs, fur, ears, tail, meows

Dog: 4 legs, fur, ears, tail, woofs

I'll bite.

"You two blithering idiots do realize that in the span of twenty minutes I've both acknowledged, respected, and responded to Rampage's post, while you guys have gone on spouting about god knows what and ignored my post, precisely what you were accusing the "[alliances that dominate] this thread" of doing? And you honestly wonder why people stop feeling any motivation to bring more discourse to this place?"

Whether or not l33t knew his post to be false (which is accurately confirmed by multiple people itt to be false,) his entire post is centered around the two individuals he quoted being blithering idiots and the reason people do not "bring more discourse to this place," without addressing the actual claim that people were (and many, multiple people were,) ignoring Rampage's post. Therefore either he knew he was in the wrong and attempted to subvert the argument by attacking the person rather than the claim, or did not know he was wrong and instead of stating such decided that it would be more equitable for him to pronounce that we've been "spouting about god knows what," (blithering idiots, being the reason for l.o.d., etc.) than alone addressing whether or not we ignored him.

So I'd agree that perhaps the italicized portion of his post is not an ad hominem argument. However, a good majority (tu quoque in that we are ignoring his post, therefore the argument that others are ignoring Rampage is invalid, blithering idiots abusive ad hominem) is as it seeks to attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. You'll have to forgive me if I don't say "74.6% of your post is an ad hominem argument," because that's just silly. I actually said "Ad hominem aside," in the following post so I think I covered that, actually.

"You really shouldn't use words when you don't know what they mean."

Similarly, potato could quite clearly make the argument that the individual he quoted is incorrect in saying that l33t guy's post was not an ad hominem argument and it would not be an ad hominem argument on its own. However, because it's a slight that insinuates the users intelligence is lacking therefore the person is thus incredulous in pointing out whether l33t made an ad hominem argument. Potato claims is a lack of knowledge of what an ad hominem argument means, not whether it is an ad hominem argument. Therefore, he insults the user as being unintelligent and thus further attempts to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it without support for his argument.

I would agree then that if potato had argued that l337's post was not an ad hominem argument his own argument would not in fact be an ad hominem argument.

However, he did not do that and instead focused his point on the users intelligence and ability to identify an ad hominem argument without any other evidence than the pretty clear insinuation that the users intelligence is/was lacking (abusive ad hominem,) and therefore the argument that l33t's post was an ad hominem argument is false.

The point of 1337's post was that he thought you ignored his. It's that simple. He called you a blithering idiot and a hypocrite because he thought you ignored his post. Something that you conclude from an argument can't be an ad hominem for that argument because 1) that'd be cyclical and dumb, and 2) its truth is dependant on the argument being true.

"You totally misred my argument, therefore you must be retarded and probably illiterate" is, in fact, not an ad hominem.

The point of potato's post is that you were using the term incorrectly. It's that simple. He says that you don't know what the word means because you used the word incorrectly. Something that you conclude from an argument can't be an ad hominem for that argument because 1) that'd be cyclical and dumb, and 2) its truth is dependant on the argument being true.

(Also saying that someone doesn't know what a word means is really not an insult, but considering you seem so hell bent on seeing it as one, then you get a more substantive argument.)

The point of 1337's post was that he thought you ignored his. It's that simple. He called you a blithering idiot and a hypocrite because he thought you ignored his post. Something that you conclude from an argument can't be an ad hominem for that argument because 1) that'd be cyclical and dumb, and 2) its truth is dependant on the argument being true.

"You totally misred my argument, therefore you must be retarded and probably illiterate" is, in fact, not an ad hominem.

The point of potato's post is that you were using the term incorrectly. It's that simple. He says that you don't know what the word means because you used the word incorrectly. Something that you conclude from an argument can't be an ad hominem for that argument because 1) that'd be cyclical and dumb, and 2) its truth is dependant on the argument being true.

(Also saying that someone doesn't know what a word means is really not an insult, but considering you seem so hell bent on seeing it as one, then you get a more substantive argument.)

When he is wrong (as I've been getting at all along,) his argument becomes an ad-hominem argument and nothing more. He is also making a case that the individual being a "blithering idiot," and that "you two are spotting off about," are are all meant to enhance his argument by negating the individual rather than the argument that Rampage's post was ignored by others.

If he is right about the argument of the two ignoring him the other 75% of his post is still irrelevant to the point of the two individuals claims that Rampage's post was ignored and is thus an ad hominem attack seeking to enhance his argument by attacking the person rather than addressing the argument of whether Rampage's post was ignored or not.

Either way, my points stand.

As for potato, while you've attempted to expound upon his post to offer more insight it is nonetheless an extrication that does not represent reality.The post he is quoted in is meant to argue whether or not l337's post was an ad hominem argument or not, and offered no support to such claim other than an attempt to negate the person rather than the argument in insulting their intellect. (Sure, you could argue this but I think we've confirmed his view on his post itt. as much as necessary.)

Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

I'll explain it once more since you don't seem to get: I said you were using the words "ad" and "hominem" wrong. End of story. I wasn't negating the rest of your argument. I wasn't insulting your intelligence. You're perfectly capable of doing that yourself.

PS: that last line isn't an ad hominem either so save your time and concentrate on trying to be edgy.

Weird, I had a post before, but it got removed. Or never posted?

Anyways.

Myth. You just ignored my entire argument. "An insult that follows from a claim cannot be an ad hominem." Do I have to continue to help you figure out how to argue with me?

Choices

A) Demonstrate that an insult that follows from a claim can be an ad hominem.

B) Demonstrate that the insults in that post didn't follow from the claim.

C) Continue to spout the exact same thing over and over in different words. (this is the wrong one. don't pick it)

That's a tautology. I did not ignore your argument, let alone its entirety. You are saying that those are merely just insults and not meant to strengthen his argument (explained in the whether he knowingly lied or not,) which is simply false. None of which relate to whether or not Rampage's post was in fact removed or not and are meant to discredit the individual and detract from the argument at hand, and as such fall under the multiple ad hominem alternatives (and indeed, as you stressed, under the original sub-definition as well.) There is no pick and choose as to when the definition can and can't be used and I'm more than aware of the examples you claim to be the only instances of being "ad hominem," arguments, but that is false.

@ l33t's post and continued

When he is wrong (as I've been getting at all along,) his argument becomes an ad-hominem argument and nothing more. He is also making a case that the individual being a "blithering idiot," and that "you two are spotting off about," are are all meant to enhance his argument by negating the individual rather than the argument that Rampage's post was ignored by others.

If he is right about the argument of the two ignoring him the other 75% of his post is still irrelevant to the point of the two individuals claims that Rampage's post was ignored and is thus an ad hominem attack seeking to enhance his argument by attacking the person rather than addressing the argument of whether Rampage's post was ignored or not.

Either way, my points stand.

@potato

I'll explain it once more since you don't seem to get: I said you were using the words "ad" and "hominem" wrong. End of story. I wasn't negating the rest of your argument. I wasn't insulting your intelligence. You're perfectly capable of doing that yourself.

You did not say that, you said I should not use words that I don't know the meaning of. There is no argument as to whether l337's posts are ad hominem arguments or not, rather only a snide comment meant to mock the individual you quoted and insult their intelligence.

There is no "You are incorrect at claiming l337's argument was an ad hominem attack," there was simply "You don't know what ad hominem means." This is an attack on the individuals ability to either reason or think but not an argument of whether or not l337's posts are or are not ad hominem arguments.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, in fact, I'm taking what you've said (and only what you've said,) at face value. Or ...as some people like to have fun with! "Literally."

u bring da beefz i got da grillz

Alright let's back this up. I feel like I'm repeating myself (because I more or less am) but herein lies the crux of why you're wrong.

A fallacy is faulty reasoning. If no reasoning or argument stems from the insult, it isn't a fallacy.

Also because this seems to be what you're trying to get at: "Gaining the advantage in a debate" does not immediately costitute "reasoning". You can call your opponent a !@#$-head to your heart's content, but if you don't use his !@#$-head status as part of your argument's reasoning, it's not a fallacy. Even if calling your opponent a !@#$-head somehow results in people favoring your argument. There needs to be some argumentative link between the statement which is said to be a fallacy and the conclusion of the argument.

Also, w/r/t what you said to Potato, you just argued in a circle until you refuted yourself.

If you take his post at face value, "literally", he's making an argument "You shouldn't use words you don't know the meaning of." You cannot infer any meaning or insult from this, because you're taking it at face value. There's no insult there.

Or if you seem to think that at face value, "This is an attack on the individuals ability to either reason or think but not an argument of whether or not l337's posts are or are not ad hominem arguments." Then it's only an insult which we have determined in the absence of an argument is not an ad hominem.

Or If you try to infer any meaning from it, then you run into the problem where potato is here actually telling you you've inferred the wrong thing.

The problem is that an argument is raised in that the two individuals l337 quotes also are said to be stupid blithering idiots and are the reason people no longer engage in discourse in an argument over whether Rampage's post was ignored or not. He has no argument other than a tu quoque ad hominem argument as to why this would be true. This is what you say is not an ad hominem because it is the inferred conclusion of an argument, but that's faulty reasoning and as such there is more logical and reasonable evidence to support that l337 has actually made an ad hominem argument in one, two or three ways, depending on which approach one uses.

As for potato, the argument which he is addressing is whether or not l337 guy's post is an ad hominem attack or not, as it is quoted directly above his remark "you don't know what ad hominem means." There is no inference, it is either a relevant detail or the entire post is nonsense at which point I'd withdraw my claim it was an ad hominem attack and, well, just nonsense. But as is demonstrated by the individual who made the comment that was not its intent. As such potato made an argument that l337 did not make an ad hominem argument by stating that individual either did not have the capacity or was incapable of determining what an ad hominem argument is/was. As such no actual evidence was supported other than an attempt to negate the truth by pointing out a negative belief or characteristic of the indivdiual he has quoted (not being able to identify/have the capacity to identify an ad hominem argument,) rather than making an actual argument.

You argue that it's an insult, I argue that the definition allows for the manner in which potato has posted to be considered by definition an abusive ad hominem argument of the ad hominem variety/variation.

He has no argument other than a tu quoque ad hominem argument as to why this would be true.

Responding to this point, as that's the key point of your paragraph.

This is incorrect. His argument is that you are incorrect about everyone ignoring Rampage's post because he did not ignore it. Everything else in his post follows from this argument. None of it is used to support this argument. Zero ad hominems are present.

"You really shouldn't use words when you don't know what they mean." at face value is a claim. Even if we infer one step past face value, "You don't know what ad hominem means" is still just a claim. Claiming that someone doesn't know what a term means is not an insult. If it is unsubstantiated, that doesn't somehow mean that the claim also implies anything about the capacity of the opponent to identify or comprehend the term.

I honestly don't know how much longer I want to keep doing this dance, though. I get the distinct feeling that you're simply attempting to prove your ability to stubbornly argue a point regardless of merit rather than reach a conclusion or some other intellectually disingenous pursuit. I'd simply rather not participate. (And this is me giving you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise I'd have to assume you have deficiencies in reading comprehension and logical process.)

He has no argument other than a tu quoque ad hominem argument as to why this would be true.

Responding to this point, as that's the key point of your paragraph.

This is incorrect. His argument is that you are incorrect about everyone ignoring Rampage's post because he did not ignore it. Everything else in his post follows from this argument. None of it is used to support this argument. Zero ad hominems are present.

Like I said, this is just one of the multiple takes that you can have on his post. His argument is not necessarily that all of what he said is because both other individuals have in fact ignored his own posts (which as stated, was impossible,) that people no longer engage in discourse, but people in fact no longer engage in discourse because of blithering idiots, which is unfounded as being part of the argument that other individuals ignored L337's post. If it is part of the post supporting the argument, then they are ad hominem arguments in support of his argument that others ignored his post while attempting to negate the man and not the argument. If it is claimed that these are insults arrived at as a conclusion made by the fallacy, they are still ad hominem arguments as they are offered not becuase of the conclusion but to support his general point (the other 75% of this post,) that the two he has quoted are blithering idiots, reason why people etc, and spouting nonsense et al. All irrelevant to the point of the individuals ignoring Rampage. You are arguing that there is a distinction between insults and abusive ad hominems, otherwise, and that's simply impossible to argue.

"You really shouldn't use words when you don't know what they mean." at face value is a claim. Even if we infer one step past face value, "You don't know what ad hominem means" is still just a claim. Claiming that someone doesn't know what a term means is not an insult. If it is unsubstantiated, that doesn't somehow mean that the claim also implies anything about the capacity of the opponent to identify or comprehend the term.

It's quite simply meant to be abusive and to support his overarching argument as demonstrated IThatT and ITT that it was ridicule. By your own assessment, insults alone may not constitute an ad hominem, but when the individual clearly addresses his intended target by attempting to make the argument that l337 did not make an ad hominem argument by using personal attacks to negate the users intelligence/ability, it does in fact become an abusive ad hominem.

I honestly don't know how much longer I want to keep doing this dance, though. I get the distinct feeling that you're simply attempting to prove your ability to stubbornly argue a point regardless of merit rather than reach a conclusion or some other intellectually disingenous pursuit. I'd simply rather not participate. (And this is me giving you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise I'd have to assume you have deficiencies in reading comprehension and logical process.)

Me either!

You are arguing that there is a distinction between insults and abusive ad hominems, otherwise, and that's simply impossible to argue.

Actually yes that's exactly what I'm arguing, and I'm correct. As I've said: an ad hominem is a kind of fallacy used to refute an opponent's argument. And a fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Thus, if the insult is not used in the reasoning behind the refutation an argument, it's not an ad hominem.

Unless you can demonstrate how 1337 used any of his insults to reason that your post was wrong, then you have been proven incorrect.

It's quite simply meant to be abusive and to support his overarching argument as demonstrated IThatT and ITT that it was ridicule.

No, it isn't. Potato specifically has said that it wasn't meant to insult anything.

but when the individual clearly addresses his intended target by attempting to make the argument that l337 did not make an ad hominem argument by using personal attacks to negate the users intelligence/ability

No matter how many times you say it, telling someone that they do not know what a term means is not a personal attack in any way, shape, or form.

You are arguing that there is a distinction between insults and abusive ad hominems, otherwise, and that's simply impossible to argue.

Actually yes that's exactly what I'm arguing, and I'm correct. As I've said: an ad hominem is a kind of fallacy used to refute an opponent's argument. And a fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Thus, if the insult is not used in the reasoning behind the refutation an argument, it's not an ad hominem.

The insult is used as part of the reasoning indirectly in two instances and directly back-relating on the last. You have ignored this part a few times.

Unless you can demonstrate how 1337 used any of his insults to reason that your post was wrong, then you have been proven incorrect.

Sort of like how he would use those if he knew his statement to be false to reinforce his point?

It's quite simply meant to be abusive and to support his overarching argument as demonstrated IThatT and ITT that it was ridicule.

No, it isn't. Potato specifically has said that it wasn't meant to insult anything.

but when the individual clearly addresses his intended target by attempting to make the argument that l337 did not make an ad hominem argument by using personal attacks to negate the users intelligence/ability

No matter how many times you say it, telling someone that they do not know what a term means is not a personal attack in any way, shape, or form.

It is when you are using it as the argument as to whether an additional post is an ad hominem argument or not and not addressing it, but the individual instead.

It's pretty easy.

Myth is a raging idiot and everything he says is retarded = ad hominem

Myth, what you just said is retarded = not ad hominem

Myth, you are retarded = not ad hominem

An insult to the person for the purpose of arguing a point that is unrelated and does not address directly the actual point is an ad hominem argument. Abusive ad hominem variation, per your source.