Ad Hominem

[CaptainPanic]

[edit] Removing my contribution. Forgot that I moderated earlier. It's mod-policy not to participate in threads where you moderate. Please ignore this post.

[Prometheus]

No. The first five responses were explaining why his thread served its purpose without the part that I told him was wrong. Those responses had absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

 

I don't understand. Are you saying the first five points did address a point (that his thread served its purpose), but that point was not one you had previously addressed?

 

Also confused by all this talk of 'personal attacks'. Why the need to talk debate this? Just stick to using 'ad hominem' and we won't have to complicate things by defining yet another term.

 

 

 

[pmb]

I don't understand. Are you saying the first five points did address a point (that his thread served its purpose), but that point was not one you had previously addressed?

The first five points were about the subject of the thread but had nothing to do with the argument.

 

Also confused by all this talk of 'personal attacks'. Why the need to talk debate this? Just stick to using 'ad hominem' and we won't have to complicate things by defining yet another term.

In the opening post I referred to it as an ad hominem. Later on, in post #20, I quoted the definition of it from my text on critical thinking and in that definition it stated that personal attacl was just another name for ad homine, i.e. that they're synonyms. Later, in post #24, swansont started to question the fact that that they're synonyms. I explained why it wasn't and it took on a life of its own after that.

 

I don't know why people are so interested whethher these two terms are ad hominems. They just keep asking me questions and I keep answerig them. I lost interest in this a very long time ago. People still continue telling me I'm wrong so I continue to explain it to them. If you want to know why they keep bringing it up you'll have to ask them. I'm bored so I don't mind answering them.

Edited July 5, 2012 by pmb

[Ophiolite]

Besides, nobody asked for your opinion (Addressed to Ophiolite)

1. It's a frigging discussion forum. Opinions are implicitly sought.

2. You opened this thread with these words: "I'd like a second opinion on something I was faced with elsewhere."

[pmb]

1. It's a frigging discussion forum. Opinions are implicitly sought.

Opinions are sought on the subject matter, not on off topic distractions such as silly things like me asking swansont why he was frustrated over a disagreement.

 

2. You opened this thread with these words: "I'd like a second opinion on something I was faced with elsewhere."

Yes. That's what I stated. But that wasn't the question. The question was Would you say that this is an ad hominem? which was a question asked about a particular ad hominem. What you commented on was something that was not on topic, i.e. not about that particular a hominem. But if you thought it neccesary to ask about that then you didn't need to be rude about it.