Ad Hominem
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1 Mar 3, 2013
It means attacking the person instead of the argument. It's considered flawed argumentation.
Too much of it on this forum.
Schalke

Vilnius, Lithuania

#2 Mar 3, 2013
Yes it is true but if an argument is valid, it is valid, regardless of ad hom.

A fact is a fact, whether the person saying it is a total moron or not, the fact of that person being a retard is irrelevant to the fact.

However, when someone disputes that fact or has a claim that is NOT demonstrated by evidence, then I think that their character can go some way to ascertaining the truth of what they say, or even whether to ignore it.

If someone says 'The Sky is down and the land is up", despite numerous sources proving otherwise, then what is a poster to do?

This place is full of logical fallacies, appeals to popularity and authority are pretty constant here, some fool saying that they have a degree/masters/Doctorate has no bearing on whether or not what they say is true, I am surprised by how many 'educated' people here use that fallacy, savant is one of the biggest users of that fallacy, yet claims to be greatly educated and an educator, he would lose an oral debate to most intellectuals I know.

I have had run-ins with racists here who make a statement, I prove it is wrong, even posting why it was wrong with links to .gov and .edu TDL's, and yet they will never admit they are wrong, and, even more frustrating, people cosign their posts without even reading or understanding what we are chatting about. This place is VERY partisan and polarized, and very very immature.

Anyway, what does it matter, this is not the place to solve problems in the AA community or really to discuss AA issues, it has a peak of about 1,200 viewers, even if people stayed on topic, this place isn't changing the world.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3 Mar 3, 2013
Schalke wrote:
Yes it is true but if an argument is valid, it is valid, regardless of ad hom.
A fact is a fact, whether the person saying it is a total moron or not, the fact of that person being a retard is irrelevant to the fact.
However, when someone disputes that fact or has a claim that is NOT demonstrated by evidence, then I think that their character can go some way to ascertaining the truth of what they say, or even whether to ignore it.
If someone says 'The Sky is down and the land is up", despite numerous sources proving otherwise, then what is a poster to do?
This place is full of logical fallacies, appeals to popularity and authority are pretty constant here, some fool saying that they have a degree/masters/Doctorate has no bearing on whether or not what they say is true, I am surprised by how many 'educated' people here use that fallacy, savant is one of the biggest users of that fallacy, yet claims to be greatly educated and an educator, he would lose an oral debate to most intellectuals I know.
I have had run-ins with racists here who make a statement, I prove it is wrong, even posting why it was wrong with links to .gov and .edu TDL's, and yet they will never admit they are wrong, and, even more frustrating, people cosign their posts without even reading or understanding what we are chatting about. This place is VERY partisan and polarized, and very very immature.
Anyway, what does it matter, this is not the place to solve problems in the AA community or really to discuss AA issues, it has a peak of about 1,200 viewers, even if people stayed on topic, this place isn't changing the world.
True, a person's character and reputation are relevant to his credibility.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#4 Mar 3, 2013
Schalke wrote:
Yes it is true but if an argument is valid, it is valid, regardless of ad hom.
A fact is a fact, whether the person saying it is a total moron or not, the fact of that person being a retard is irrelevant to the fact.
However, when someone disputes that fact or has a claim that is NOT demonstrated by evidence, then I think that their character can go some way to ascertaining the truth of what they say, or even whether to ignore it.
If someone says 'The Sky is down and the land is up", despite numerous sources proving otherwise, then what is a poster to do?
This place is full of logical fallacies, appeals to popularity and authority are pretty constant here, some fool saying that they have a degree/masters/Doctorate has no bearing on whether or not what they say is true, I am surprised by how many 'educated' people here use that fallacy, savant is one of the biggest users of that fallacy, yet claims to be greatly educated and an educator, he would lose an oral debate to most intellectuals I know.
I have had run-ins with racists here who make a statement, I prove it is wrong, even posting why it was wrong with links to .gov and .edu TDL's, and yet they will never admit they are wrong, and, even more frustrating, people cosign their posts without even reading or understanding what we are chatting about. This place is VERY partisan and polarized, and very very immature.
Anyway, what does it matter, this is not the place to solve problems in the AA community or really to discuss AA issues, it has a peak of about 1,200 viewers, even if people stayed on topic, this place isn't changing the world.
I agree with everything you wrote.
Many are here just to get others angry.
holycrap

Powell, OH

#9 Mar 3, 2013
Brainiac2 wrote:
It means attacking the person instead of the argument. It's considered flawed argumentation.
Too much of it on this forum.
Well it's best to do both. Use ad hominems as well tear down the persons "argument".
holycrap

Powell, OH

#11 Mar 3, 2013
I think it's really lol when a racist calls a black poster a nasty word and the fake black philosopher comes back and tells them they are using ad hominems. lol!

Racists make these black fake philosophers look like the fools so many of them are.
Proud BM

Suceava, Romania

#15 Mar 3, 2013
sand_-cracker wrote:
<quoted text>
"You're on crack" is ad hominem, but "(your words) sound like you're on crack" is attacking your argument and therefore not ad hominem, dunce. Why am I wasting my time with you...
It is an abusive argumentum ad hominem, that phrase was meant to attack the traits of the opponent, bypassing the argument itself, which is pretty much what an argumentum ad hominem is about.

There may even be a touch of argumentum ad hominem Tu quoque about it too.

As that poster said above, none of this matters, what is real is real, people get lost in focusing on logical fallacies rather than the points that are being made.

I'd say you need to brush up on your logical fallacies, either way.
Proud BM

Suceava, Romania

#16 Mar 3, 2013
Black men, if you had any dignity at all you'd arm yourselves and take the fight to Evil Whitey!

You are owed reparations!

You are owed money for racism!

You are owed money for discrimination!

You have a right to all of Evil Whitey's wealth because you built America!

All America's wealth came as a result of your cotton and tobacco picking!

If you ugly penniless slave descendants had any self-respect at all you'd be declaring war on Evil Whitey and taking by force what you'll never be given by your white oppressors!

Proud BM

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#17 Mar 3, 2013
You Know Who wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhh, Clemmm?
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T70K1ME6QAP9T...
You're such a hypocrite, I'd spit right in your face if I ever met you.
That would be your reflex reaction in response to my foot being shoved up yor arse.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#18 Mar 3, 2013
Brainiac2 wrote:
It means attacking the person instead of the argument. It's considered flawed argumentation.
Too much of it on this forum.
Yes. It is a fallacy of relevance.
Can We Talk

Chester, PA

#19 Mar 3, 2013
You Know Who wrote:
I'd spit right in your face if I ever met you.
You’re a P U S S Y! You’d NEVER get the courage to meet ANYONE from this site. KC punked your BYTCH azz and we ALL SAW IT HAPPEN!

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#20 Mar 3, 2013
Brainiac2 wrote:
It means attacking the person instead of the argument. It's considered flawed argumentation.
Too much of it on this forum.
Crackers also like to use the 'Argumentum ad antiquitatem' when they talk about slavery and 'Argumentum ad Hitlerum' when I say some true facts about the askheNAZIm Jews and supremacist state of Israel.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#23 Mar 3, 2013
You Know Who wrote:
<quoted text>What IS it with you colored boys and your obsession with male ass? Is it from your prison heritage, or what?
A foot isn't a penis. Stop fantasizing bebulus!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#24 Mar 3, 2013
You Know Who wrote:
<quoted text>Do you just invent words because you don't know any real ones, or do you think everyone else is as stupid as you are, and might think you know what you're ooking about?
Believe me, in the ooking department yu gots everyone here beat!

Level 8

Since: Oct 09

Paris France

#27 Mar 3, 2013
Darkjaemess wrote:
<quoted text>
Crackers also like to use the 'Argumentum ad antiquitatem' when they talk about slavery and 'Argumentum ad Hitlerum' when I say some true facts about the askheNAZIm Jews and supremacist state of Israel.
perfectly right sir.
especially the local AIPAC agent.

a whiteboi

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#28 Mar 3, 2013
Schalke wrote:
Yes it is true but if an argument is valid, it is valid, regardless of ad hom.
A fact is a fact, whether the person saying it is a total moron or not, the fact of that person being a retard is irrelevant to the fact.
However, when someone disputes that fact or has a claim that is NOT demonstrated by evidence, then I think that their character can go some way to ascertaining the truth of what they say, or even whether to ignore it.
If someone says 'The Sky is down and the land is up", despite numerous sources proving otherwise, then what is a poster to do?
This place is full of logical fallacies, appeals to popularity and authority are pretty constant here, some fool saying that they have a degree/masters/Doctorate has no bearing on whether or not what they say is true, I am surprised by how many 'educated' people here use that fallacy, savant is one of the biggest users of that fallacy, yet claims to be greatly educated and an educator, he would lose an oral debate to most intellectuals I know.
I have had run-ins with racists here who make a statement, I prove it is wrong, even posting why it was wrong with links to .gov and .edu TDL's, and yet they will never admit they are wrong, and, even more frustrating, people cosign their posts without even reading or understanding what we are chatting about. This place is VERY partisan and polarized, and very very immature.
Anyway, what does it matter, this is not the place to solve problems in the AA community or really to discuss AA issues, it has a peak of about 1,200 viewers, even if people stayed on topic, this place isn't changing the world.
But a VALID argument can be UNSOUND. Validity has to do with the structure or FORM of a DEDUCTIVE argument. When it is invalid, then it has been affected by a formal fallacy. When it is valid that means the form is structurally correct; and then it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false if we grant that the premises are true. But what if the premises are not actually true even though the form is valid. Then the argument is unsound.
An Argumentum ad Hominem is an INFORMAL fallacy. Moreover, it's a fallacy of relevance, i.e. the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Hence it doesn't matter whether the premises are true of false. The prove NOTHING.
Axe-Me-Anything

Providence, UT

#29 Mar 3, 2013
Savant wrote:
perfectly right sir.
especially the local AIPAC agent.
a whiteboi
Nobody believes you're white.
Can We Talk

Chester, PA

#30 Mar 3, 2013
Axe-Me-Anything wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody believes you're white.
Nobody gives a FK what your dumb azz believes BYTCH!

Level 1

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#31 Mar 3, 2013
So far, it looks to me that about 90% of the argument on this forum is just ad hominem.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#32 Mar 3, 2013
Axe-Me-Anything wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody believes you're white.
Listen, you fool. Don't you EVER again post anything under my name.
And everyone knows that Savant is Black, not white. Old news.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Henry 1,395,641
Black Men are Pathetic (Jun '13) 12 min The Reality 107
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 1 hr dreamhunk 46,460
My Observation of Whites: They have totally Los... 1 hr Too Late 8
News Is This Black Parenting Magazine Racist? 1 hr KIP 13
The Moors, Egyptians and Phoenicians were not b... (Jun '14) 1 hr gooner98 1,612
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 1 hr JOHNS ON TOP OF IT 136,038
Do you understand 3 hr Truth Hurts 28
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 3 hr larryX 32,666
News Donald Trump Is Unfit to Lead 7 hr barefoot2626 93
5 stabbed @ white nationalist trump rally 8 hr Fukanig 88
More from around the web