IYIyTh
-
Posts
4,457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by IYIyTh
-
-
He is an uslurper.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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."
-
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.
-
Close. Clipper shopping will commence soon.
-
Tell us all about VE again.
-
Well then we're good considering those instances fall under that spectrum. Carry on!
-
Sorry Myth, but when all you can rebut with is "No, actually I'm right." or a point you've already made (that I've attempted to refute) without any further elaboration, then I'm going to say thanks for playing, and have a good day.
Yes, that's what I did in the previous 7 posts. "I'm right, you're wrong."
I would've just wrote that if actually wanted to, but I'll take this as you've given up.
Also, the point of contention (at least between I and Ktarth,) is not whether or not an ad hominem is true or not, just that it is.
In this instance neither two instances apply as being related to the argument as SoM and TN have both pointed out, but I'd tend to agree that the credibility of a witness and someone being called a liar could be relevant (although there are exceptions.) Not in these cases though as they are clearly meant to detract from the opposing argument and discredit rather than address or add to theirs.
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.
-
Main article: Tu quoqueAd hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.
l337's post (also,) falls under this variation as provided by your source. He indicates because the individual has ignored his post (which is in fact wrong as you readily admit,) the point that others have ignored Rampage is absurd because others are doing the exact same thing to him.
Nothing about what has been said about potato's post is ridiculous. It is logically sound and follows the definitions you have provided me with. That you associate them as closely with personal attacks is of no consequence to the argument that they are in fact ad hominem variations per your source.
Also, I love lamp.
-
You are stuck on the first definition and are ignoring the various list of variations of the ad hominem argument as listed by your source.
I'm aware that the first example you state is the only definition of what an ad hominem argument is does not accurately represent those in question, but have quite rightly used your own source which clearly demonstrates variations of the ad hominem argument which do validate the claim that each posts were in fact ad hominem attacks.
As for you literally or illiterally understanding, his point is that if one does not know the meaning of their argument and thus is attacking whether they have the ability or wherewithall to cognitively process the argument rather than the argument itself, which is p much text book of this definition from your own source. I'll not address l337's as you seem to have focused elsewhere for this exercise.
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. However, verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is neither ad hominem nor a fallacy.
potato is claiming that because one does not know the meaning of what an ad hominem is (I think whether or not this is valid has been demonstrated quite fruitfully here, but I digress,) that they are either A. Incapable of producing a valid argument B. Similar to CSM's text book-definition but the insinuation the user is unintelligent and therefore can not make a valid argument. C. Incapable of correctly identifying an ad hominem argument despite what he claims to be "not knowing," what it means, which is not necessarily true.
In addition, potato quoted a post which actually had a vast amount of information other than the words "ad hominem," so he specifically ignored the rest of the argument and attempted to insult the users intelligence rather than address the argument on hand. While you could claim this was simply "verbal abuse," and not an argument at all that is actually incorrect as then point C. is in effect and his post is an argument for C, which is in fact an argument in and of itself and thus it is by definition an ad hominem argument.
Also, this is a matter of incorrect or incorrect usage, I only need to prove that the definition is feasible and not necessarily more or less appropriate.
-
Perhaps you should've disabled comments then.
It's an abusive ad hominem as per the definition you provided. In addition you completely ignored the argument (ironically,) that he incorrectly argued that the individuals he had quoted had actually ignored him and as such the basis of their posts were not valid. (This is proven to be incorrect, but this is irrelevant from the point being made here.)
potato's entire post is without merit because he is debating the point of whether the user who posted it knew what the word meant and as such fallaciously assumed that even if an individual did not know what a !@#$%* was that they could for sure not accurately call someone a !@#$%* and be correct. This is thus described appropriately in the text you removed.
It is a fallacy by the definition you provided and the basis of which your entire premise is centered on, which clearly excludes the multiple/many variations of the form that you have listed. This is from your source, not an opinion.
I don't know why anyone else posts here, but I do it for fun. I'm having tons of it.
If we are all going to be intellectual snobs we could certainly do better.
Next time, we eat bullets.
-
Since you used the medium for the discourse of this debate of being wikipedia I suppose I'll use it as well for !@#$% and giggles.
I'll "assume," you used this article: "http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ad_hominem "
Abusive
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. However, verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is neither ad hominem nor a fallacy.
http://forums.cybern...dpost&p=2912659
This post is particularly hilarious because l337 quotes two posts which were made before the post he refers to and referencing the five or six individuals who ignored or attempted to debase Rampage, before l337's quasi-answer which basically was predicated that his and his alliances unreasonable behavior was actually justified. I digress.
l337's "blithering idiot," comment would constitute as an abusive ad hominem as the main and first point to his explanation has nothing to do with the post he has quoted. In addition, he also states that I and/or Don whatshisface have in fact ignored his post (The original posts make the same accusation l337 infers that our point is moot because we have in fact reverse-engineered time itself and ignored him,) (Tu quoque) (Impossible due to the timing of his post and posts quoted,) and therefore people should not want to disclose things publicly, or whatnought.
http://forums.cybern...dpost&p=2912666
This post claims that one should not use words when one doesn't know what they mean. Whether he is correct or incorrect it does not address whether the logic involved in the point made has merit, and seeks to belittle the individual when whether one knows what a word means or not it does not actually determine whether the word is accurate for the assessment or situation, and is thus an abusive ad hominem argument. One could theoretically not know what the slang use of the word "!@#$%^&," means and accurately identify an individual who is in fact an !@#$%^&. Or we could just say it's not an argument but just verbal abuse, but since it's used in the context of whether or not the previous argument is valid or not it's not really clear.
And...Key change!!!
-
For Me?!?!
-
Insert political spin here
-
They have a list of the alch % on the beer menu when you go. She made a face when she tried it, I sipped it and went...I bet this is up there...haha
It was the second most alcoholic beer they had, it was their special and the bartender recommended it hahaha
-
Troeg’s Mad Elf
A cheerful creation to warm your heart and enlighten your tongue during the holiday season. The combination of cherries, honey and chocolate malts delivers gentle fruits and subtle spices. Fermented and aged with a unique yeast, this ruby red beer has significant warming strength that underlies the pleasant character of this intriguing yet delicious ale.
-
Place had about 30 microbrews you could get too, I got what the guy recommended and it turned out to taste similar to elf piss. 11% alcohol content. Christ.
11% and you're complaining? Lightweight. What was it?
That said, there's a big enough variety on beers that you never take your server's advice without telling them what you like first.
Troeg's Elf Something.
Tasted awful, like a dark beer with a !@#$%* hint of cherry.
I wasn't complaining. Bartender recommended it for t he girl I brought, and after I looked at the % I got one myself.
She asked me what I thought and I told her it was awful, and she asked if I was going to finish it.
Of course haha, I'm here with you.
-
-
The Kindergarten
fresh baked bread, choose your favorite cheese–$6.00
Wake and Bacon
fresh amish farmed fried eggs,crisp bacon, american–$8.00
Porky Cheese
honey ham, crisp bacon, swiss–$8.50
Westside Monte Cristo
honey ham, smoked turkey, swiss, american, beer battered, mixed berry preserves–$10.00
Summer Chicken
grilled chicken, lettuce, tomato, havarti, roasted garlic herb dressing–$9.50
Winter Chicken
grilled chicken, honey tomato chipotle sauce, pepper-jack–$9.00
Blackened Chicken
cast iron blackened, grilled peppers & onions, provolone–$9.00
BBQ Chicken
grilled chicken, grilled onions, sharp cheddar, sweet BBQ sauce–$9.00
Chorizo and Potato
spicy mexican sausage, potato hash, sharp cheddar–$8.50
Smokey Russian
smoked turkey, fresh napa vodka kraut, smoked gouda, russian dressing–$9.00
Municipal Stadium Magic
locally made jumbo bratwurst, fresh napa vodka kraut, grilled peppers, american–$9.50
Hot Italian
grilled salami, honey ham, pepperoni, sun-dried tomato pesto, roasted garlic, provolone–$10.50
Parma, Italy
breaded chicken, sun-dried tomato pesto, roasted garlic, provolone–$9.50
The Godfather
3 cheese lasagna, fresh fennel-oregano pasta sheets, spicy red sauce, provolone, garlic spiked bread–$11.50
The Dude Abides
homemade meatballs, fried mozzarella cheese sticks, rich marinara, provolone & romano–$11.00
The Parmageddon
2 potato & cheese pierogi, fresh napa vodka kraut, grilled onions, sharp cheddar–$10.00
Gyro Melt
slow roasted beef & lamb, tzatziki cucumber yogurt sauce, fresh tomato & sweet onions, feta, muenster–$11.00
The Lake Erie Monster
beer battered walleye, american, jalapeno tartar sauce–$14.00
Northcoast Shores
handmade crab cakes, wilted garlic spinach, roasted red pepper, herbed cream cheese–$12.00
Tokyo Tuna Melt
asian marinated grilled yellowfin steak, ginger wasabi dressing, lettuce, tomato, muenster–$13.00
Purple Parma
hand breaded eggplant, grilled tomato, sun-dried tomato pesto, provolone cheese–$9.00
Big Popper
fresh jalapeno peppers, cheddar & herbed cream cheese, beer battered, mixed berry preserves–$10.00
Roasted Vegetable
zucchini, eggplant, yellow squash, carrots, sun-dried tomato pesto, muenster–$8.50
Mushroom Melt
garlic portabellas, caramel port onions, provolone–$8.50
Spinach Pie
wilted garlic spinach, roasted red peppers, grilled onions, feta–$8.50
Grilled Peanut Butter and Banana
fresh made peanut butter, sweet cream cheese, mixed berry preserves–$8.50
Veggie Burger
our handmade recipe, chipotle tofu mayo, grilled tomato, muenster–$8.50
Half Combo
half kindergarten, soup cup and salad–$7.50
Grilled Cheese Burgers
Melt Burger
8 oz fresh ground steak, choose your cheese–$9.00
Fat City Burger
salami, honey ham, crisp bacon, swiss, american–$12.00
Blackened Blue Burger
cast iron blackened, grilled onions, blue cheese–$10.00
El Diablo Burger
ancho, pasilla negro, cayenne and chipotle dried pepper rub, fresh jalapeno, pepper-jack–$10.00
Breakfast Burger
2 amish farmed fried eggs, crisp bacon, american–$10.50
Mushroom Burger
garlic portabellas, provolone–$10.00
Cleveland Cheese Steak
grilled flank, portabellas, peppers & onions, provolone–$12.00
Sweet and Smokey Steak
grilled flank. caramel port onions, smoked gouda–$12.00
Ad Hominem
in Your Argument Sucks
A blog by ktarthan in General
Posted
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.
Sort of like how he would use those if he knew his statement to be false to reinforce his point?
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.