Let's settle this - Ad hominems

[Left]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

 

[quatona]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

Yes, it is.
(OTOH one could argue that it can´t be an ad hominem fallacy - because there hadn´t been an argument presented, in the first place.)

 

[Left]

(OTOH one could argue that it can´t be an ad hominem fallacy - because there hadn´t been an argument presented, in the first place.)

Yes, but I meant ignoring that aspect. Let's say someone says "God is real" and presents proof.

 

[quatona]

Yes, but I meant ignoring that aspect. Let's say someone says "God is real" and presents proof.

"You are a butt" addresses the person, not the argument.
This is the very definition of "ad hominem".

 

[Larniavc]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

No.

If the answer is: You're a butt and consequently your argument is wrong; that WOULD be an add hom.

 

[Left]

No.

If the answer is: You're a butt and consequently your argument is wrong; that WOULD be an add hom.

What?

 

[section9+1]

I can say God is real and I have proof that satisfies me. Someone else can say God is not real and my proof means nothing to them. They are correct in their stance because for them God is not real. We decided the realities for ourselves. If I want God to reveal himself to me, he will and if my philosophy has no room for God, he will not be there.

 

[Larniavc]

What?

The issue of an add hom is that it attacks the person to weaken their position.

Just attacking the person is not a logical fallacy but saying what amounts to 'your argument is flawed because you are a butt' is a logical fallacy because the person being a butt is independent of the strength of their argument.

I could be the biggest butt in the world but if I said Canada was bigger than America I would still be right.

My status as a butt is irrelevant to my argument.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

An ad hominem attack is directed against the person. So, "You're a [insulting term of choice]" is an ad hominem attack.

Closely related is the simple (example) statement, "That is a stupid thought!" It isn't exactly directed against the speaker but implies it.

A logical reply is one which demonstrates fact - not subjective opinion - and reasonable inferences.

The problem with 'proving' God is the definition of 'proof'. I know God in that He and I talk and deal with one another. However, that cannot be demonstrated in the same manner as fingerprints or birth certificates or a test tube reaction or a mathematical proof. Doesn't make it any less real, just 'unprovable'.

 

[quatona]

The issue of an add hom is that it attacks the person to weaken their position.

Just attacking the person is not a logical fallacy but saying what amounts to 'your argument is flawed because you are a butt' is a logical fallacy because the person being a butt is independent of the strength of their argument.

I could be the biggest but in the world but if I said Canada was bigger than America I would still be right.

My status as a but is irrelevant to my argument.

You´re a butt.

 

[Left]

Like I said, there are actually two definitions of ad hominem, and I prefer the one where all personal attacks are pretty much ad hominem. As soon as someone insults me more than lightheartedly, I am completely done with the debate.

 

[Strivax]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

Not sure if it counts as ad hominem, only that it is a non sequitur.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[quatona]

Like I said, there are actually two definitions of ad hominem, and I prefer the one where all personal attacks are pretty much ad hominem.

"Ad hominem" just means "to the person". An "ad hominem fallacy" requires the explicit or implicit attempt to make the ad hominem look like an argument of sorts.

 

[quatona]

Not sure if it counts as ad hominem, only that it is a non sequitur.

A non sequitur means you are presenting a logical progression in which the conclusion doesn´t follow from the premises. Seeing how in the given case there isn´t even the attempt of being logical...

 

[USincognito]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

No. That's an insult, but not an ad hominem.

 

[Dave-W]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

I don't think so. Let's put a couple of fictitious names in the mix to help explain.

Pridefull321 says "God is Real."
Imanidiot999 says "We know that can't possibly be right, since everything Pridefull321 says is a lie."

That is an ad-hominem.

It is using a negative pre-conception of a poster to make what they say contemptible, by making THEM contemptible. In essence Imanidiot999 is calling Prideful321 a liar, thus making the statement a lie.

I am not sure that straight out calling names does that. But that may be up to the interpretation of the mods.

my apologies to anyone if they have either of those names ....

 

[Left]

No. That's an insult, but not an ad hominem.

So I can unleash 100 of my best insults on you and it would be a sound argument?

 

[USincognito]

Yes, but I meant ignoring that aspect. Let's say someone says "God is real" and presents proof.

Scientific proof? There's no such thing.

 

[USincognito]

Like I said, there are actually two definitions of ad hominem, and I prefer the one where all personal attacks are pretty much ad hominem. As soon as someone insults me more than lightheartedly, I am completely done with the debate.

You're attacking ad hominem by engaging in equivocation?

 

[USincognito]

"Ad hominem" just means "to the person". An "ad hominem fallacy" requires the explicit or implicit attempt to make the ad hominem look like an argument of sorts.

I think pretty much everyone using the phrase "ad hominem" means the fallacy, not just merely directing a comment at the person.