ktarthan

If its still not wrong, then only by accident. The entire point of a fallacy is faulty logic, which leads you to a faulty conclusion. While its technically possible that a conclusion based on logical fallacy is correct, the point of a fallacy is that you had a flawed method of reaching that conclusions. If it happens to be the right one, its sheer coincidence. You've probably also committed a non-sequiter in the process, since the process used to reach the conclusion is wrong. Worse, the coincidence can lead one to believe their flawed process was in fact correct, spawning more errors in the future. If you ever discover you have managed to commit a logical fallacy yet still have the right conclusions, check again and resolve the conflict. Because from a debating stand point, even if you have the correct conclusions, the logical fallacy in your process means you lack any convincing means of justifying that conclusion. Totally agreed. I do touch on this in the post right after yours (which I didn't see until after I had posted). The point I make in the OP, however, is not necessarily about when an argument is wholly derived from a fallacy, but simply when there is a fallacy within the argument. I guess it would have been more clear to say "Just because a fallacy is present in an argument does not by default refute all the other points in the argument." The fallacy itself is incorrect reasoning, but that doesn't mean that all of the reasoning in an argument is incorrect, and the fallacy could simply be moot. My main reason for noting this is due to the habit some people have of reading a comprehensive argument, picking out a single flaw, and disregarding the rest. If I'm going to discuss fallacies, I don't want to give these sorts of people more license to argue like this.

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.

Alright, so far I've tried to be nice and provice my stance in the most simple and easy to understand way possible. However, considering you seem to have no such regard for me (I don't know what your second paragraph even means), I welcome you to my unbridled thought process. A fallacy is, at its base, a flaw in reasoning. It's reasoning that through which a conclusion is formed. This conclusion is *likely* to be incorrect due to the flaw in reasoning, which is why we should always attempt to avoid using fallacies, because any correct conclusions are simply a result of coincidence. Following this, if there is something that *appears* to be a fallacy but was not used in the argumentation process at all, how can it possibly be called a fallacy? The key point in the "abusive ad hominem" definition is the insults and belittling are in order to attack a claim or invalidate an argument. Including insults or belittling your opponent near an argument do not constitute an ad hominem unless their purpose is to weaken your opponent's position. In 1337's post, his entire point is that you ignored his post, and while he also called you an idiot and a hypocrite, his point is solely based on chronology, as he seemed to think that he has posted before you. This is an objective stance, as evident by the timestamps on the posts. He got it wrong, clearly, but no amount of insults could ever have changed that. There is no argumentative purpose to insulting you while making such an objective assertion, so those insults cannot be ad hominems. edit: a hyperbolic example: "You idiot, the sun only comes out at night! Only a moron wouldn't know that. etc etc" There is no subjective opinion to sway, so the insults only act as flavor text. What you're claiming about Potato's post is ridiculous. Unless you are able to divine the hearts and minds of men, then there's no reason to do anything other than take his words at face value. He's saying that he disagrees with your usage of "ad hominem". Period. You can take any disagreement, put it through the same spin cycle you've used here, and turn it into someone belittling your intelligence because they don't think you have the cognitive ability to understand the situation properly. Like right now, as you disagree with how I interperet abusive ad hominem variation, you've belittled my cognitive ability. As you are belittling me as well as attempting to refute my argument, by your logic, I could also claim that you are using abusive ad hominem attacks. But I won't because that's absurd.

Ad hominem: Poster A ignored my post because he's an idiot. Insult: Poster A is an idiot; he ignored my post. Ad hominem: Poster A can't criticize people who ignore posts, because he ignored mine. Calling You a Hypocrite: Poster A ignored my post while criticizing others for ignoring a post. Can you recognize the difference? Do you know which one more accurately describes the post we're discussing? I literally cannot understand how you think that potato's post is an ad hominem. Despite your apparent compulsion to go shoulder-deep into that single sentence's implications, maybe you can just answer two simple questions for me, using the language in my source: 1) What claim/argument of yours is potato trying to attack/invalidate? 2) How does potato's post insult or belittle you in order to attack said claim/argument?

While I don't appreciate you bringing arguments from an unrelated thread into my blog, I'll still do you the courtesy of giving you my honest opinion on the arguments you've presented that are relevant to the blog topic. I assert that 1337's "blithering idiot" comment is not an abusive ad hominem as his insult does not contribute in any way to his argument or detract from yours. He called you a blithering idiot because he thought his argument was correct; he did not call you a blithering idiot to prove his argument was correct. The claim of an ad hom by potato is entirely without merit. I don't know how you can claim that he's trying to refute the point of the post he quoted when A) he only quoted the words "Ad-hominem", B) he didn't say a thing about the rest of the content of the post, and C) you deliberately kept your accusation of ad hominem out of your main point. He didn't substantiate his claim, but afaik that's not a fallacy.

I'm shocked. There are people in Ragnarok on [i]both[/i] sides of the issue?

who ever let you into FA, Chax? they should be fired

Thanks for the excellent examples, folks.

[quote name='Rampage3' timestamp='1328127178' post='2912687'] In the end Bob, it is not about what I want. The "what Rampage wants" ship sailed a bit back. I would have preferred that the members of my alliance find a way to deal with one another more reasonably and privately than they did. I would have preferred that my selection as successor not participate in OOC attacks on my predecessor. I would have preferred not to try to log-in Friday AM to the forums only to not get anything. I would have preferred not to [ooc]rock a sick child in the middle of the night while trying to figure out what the hell happened in the less than a week since I stepped down[ooc]. This is where we are. Rok is her warriors. They support Adel. I support Rok. And given Ragnarok's situation, I cannot simply walk away from my AA at this time. Some can, and I wish them well. But not me. [/quote] It sure is fascinating when someone can hold a very different opinion from mine yet present it in a coherent and respectful enough manner that I am given no reason to disagree with it. Kudos.

I'm a busy man, so this will be a short one. Comment if you require elaboration. An argumentum ad hominem, to borrow from wikipedia, "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." The specific data point people need to take from this is that an insult is not by default an ad hominem. Also something I want to try to mention every time I bring up fallacies: if an argument contains a fallacy, it is not by default wrong.

Looks like there is a very generous and very secretive contributor. The total went up by about $800, but the amount isn't associated with any names in the list.

[quote name='JonAce' timestamp='1328052442' post='2911890'] Well, I guess most of RoK should be expelled then, sent to more deserving alliances, and Joe/Bob can have the shell of what's left. [/quote] Technically the side that has more "power" can simply call themselves Ragnarok and either adopt the old charter or make a new one. Who's to stop them? [quote] Not when the majority of membership thinks otherwise and acts on it. You're reading correctly. [/quote] You just refuted yourself. Backwards. Point A) Charters and their clauses are only valid as long as the membership upholds them. Point B) RoK's charter lacked an explicit punishment for members who don't uphold a certain clause in the charter. [i]Point A invalidates Point B[/i].

[quote name='JonAce' timestamp='1328047992' post='2911811'] Having a line in the charter as simple as "Any calls for the Emperor to be removed forcefully by any Ragnarok member will be met with extreme force" could have cleared up any ambiguity. Just calling the Emperor position a lifetime position doesn't hold enough weight if you don't have consequences to those who would seek to usurp. [/quote] That's not necessary at all, and this is a stupid argument. It's already implicit that if you disobey your alliance's founding document that you're liable to be expelled from the alliance and have your nation destroyed. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1328049008' post='2911824'] The thing about alliance leaders is that they are ALWAYS accountable to their membership. What is a charter? It's an agreement between the membership. And if the membership agrees on something else, like, say, "This guy is really bad news, and we're going to kick him out, lets put our other agreement called 'the charter' to the side for a minute," then guess what? That's perfectly acceptable. Against the charter? Yes, it is. But not against the will of the people, and it is the will of the people that is supreme, not a silly piece of parchment. [/quote] There's nothing wrong with this, as long as you have enough support to back up that decision. I was just pointing out that it's silly to try and argue that a coup is valid within a charter when it is clearly not.

[quote name='JonAce' timestamp='1328046867' post='2911797'] I know that, but the RoK membership ignored their own charter, which makes the charter unenforceable, worthless, and by the looks of it, no longer void. How can you run an alliance when the majority of the membership doesn't comply? [/quote] Right, but you [i]literally[/i] just said that there's nothing in the charter that prevents the membership from overthrowing the Emperor. That's false. If they follow the charter then it's not possible. If they don't follow the charter, then how do they call themselves Ragnarok?

[quote name='JonAce' timestamp='1328044399' post='2911756'] Ignoring anything that occurred before the coup, and going on what [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Charter_of_Ragnarok]this[/url] says (and it's probably outdated, but it's all I've got at this moment), there is nothing forbidding the RoK membership from overthrowing the Emperor. [/quote] The charter lists the Emperor (as well as Regent and Vice-Regent) as lifetime positions. This directly contradicts what you're trying to claim.

The current average donation is $45. That's amazing you guys. Also way to make me look cheap, geez.

[quote name='NationRuler' timestamp='1327968271' post='2911009'] A competition not involving tech what is this sorcery? [/quote] Your slot efficiency won't save you this time!

May the best alliance win!

Best of luck to the membership of FOK.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1327584490' post='2907293'] What I remember you most for was when you joined GOONS during a war between coalitions, essentially jumping ship from the losing side to the winning side so you could launch nukes at Invicta despite them fighting on the same side as you before you suddenly joined GOONS during the war. Did you do it because you thought you needed to in order to save NSO or because you wanted to be a dick towards Invicta I might never know, but either way it was a dick move which you've never admitted to it being a bad move. It reminded me of something Grub would do, although from him something like that wasn't as surprising and he caused more trouble when he switched sides mid war. [/quote] RV joined GOONS for 1 month as part of NSO's surrender terms.

Glad to hear she is safe and well, and we'll be able to dispense with some of the rumours surrounding this situation.

Honestly I'd be surprised if you guys didn't pass Polar in a couple days, and that'll be a well deserved sanction. [size="1"]You might say I'm a TINY bit excited![/size]

Sorry Deinos, not today.

I am so very very excited.

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1326834064' post='2901658'] Where are we at in the countdown to GOONS getting the pip? Should be like a couple days at this point, right? [/quote] I think it's 1 or 2 days away.