|
Title: For the record, an ad hominem is not a valid argument. Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2011, 06:22:37 PM If you see any fellow user use arguments like the following in a discussion, you can justifiably invalidate their post from the discussion:
"You can't believe John when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job." "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003." "John's argument on LeBron James' failures in the NBA finals aren't worth reading, everyone knows he is a "LeBron" hater." "Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi, so her film The Triumph of the Will is devoid of merit." "Sylvia Plath was a depressive who eventually committed suicide, so her works are unreadable." "That Boris Godunov was the favorite opera of Joseph Stalin indicates the worthlessness of the opera." In any case, an individual's character, creed or other traits are irrelevant in a mature debate. Let's keep things on target. Thanks. Examples credited to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Title: Re: For the record, an ad hominem is not a valid argument. Post by: NghtRppr on September 12, 2011, 06:25:28 PM I think all the insults fly because while we libertarians can take refuge in how elegant and morally sound our views are when we get frustrated, the statists don't have that refuge. So, when they get frustrated, they just lash out.
Title: Re: For the record, an ad hominem is not a valid argument. Post by: FirstAscent on September 12, 2011, 06:25:46 PM People accuse others entirely too much of ad hominem in forums, often as an excuse to ignore numerous valid points prior to the ad hominem statement. Those who constantly cite ad hominem only lessen their own argument.
Title: Re: For the record, an ad hominem is not a valid argument. Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2011, 06:38:37 PM People accuse others entirely too much of ad hominem in forums, often as an excuse to ignore numerous valid points prior to the ad hominem statement. Those who constantly cite ad hominem only lessen their own argument. Well, it can also be said that it would be in the benefit of a genuine participant to avoid making ad hominems in the first place so that we do not get distracted from the real points and argument at hand. In the end, the whole conversation at hand is lessened. This is not a game of who has the higher ground. This is trying to achieve a better politics forum overall. Title: Re: For the record, an ad hominem is not a valid argument. Post by: NghtRppr on September 12, 2011, 06:40:46 PM An ad hominem is just fallacious reasoning. I think you're more concerned with the name calling and insults which just shows either the person arguing has such a weak position that they have to strengthen it or they're just frustrated and have nothing else to fall back on.
Title: Re: For the record, an ad hominem is not a valid argument. Post by: Hawker on September 12, 2011, 06:47:59 PM An ad hominem is just fallacious reasoning. I think you're more concerned with the name calling and insults which just shows either the person arguing has such a weak position that they have to strengthen it or they're just frustrated and have nothing else to fall back on. Agreed. Title: Re: For the record, an ad hominem is not a valid argument. Post by: Xenland on September 25, 2011, 06:01:13 AM TL:DR
I think any fallacy is overly used in forums and online debates... heck they are over used in real life all the time for people to use on each other. Educate your self today and memorize these fallacies! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies |