GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:You two girls write a lot alike, too.

And I don't need to go running to an admin just because you said to.

No you certainly don't, but if you are serious, it would be the logical thing to do. If this is just a 'crush on kow' thing then I suppose I can indulge you for a few more posts. ;)

bee,

The fact is is that 'Kow' is correct. The real question is what YOU are doing on a philosophy board if you are incapable of dispassionate debate.

The fact is that this thread stopped being a debate the moment that kow arrived and started accusing everyone with "ad hominem" and "non-sequitur", and you're not helping much. Admittedly, milli, scott, myself, and EI are not doing much to prevent its corruption.

I am perfectly capable of dispassionate debate when the situation calls for it. When the other side starts lying, name-calling, and bullshitting, I assume the rules of debate are off. I urge you to look back in this thread and, with your dispassionate unbiased view, try to find a way not to construe kow as being a total bitch from her very first post.

I understand she (or he, whatever) has become slightly more reasonable in other threads, but in this thread she has been the single most hostile, vicious character present. It is not often I get disgusted enough with a person to decide never to talk with them.

Anyway, I defend my position on "ad hominem". I know what is and is not ad hominem, just as I know what is and is not non-sequitur. Fallacies only make sense in the context of logic and relevance; a random insult is not automatically "ad hominem", nor is a relevant point about a person's life or behaviour. Ad hominem is not the same as "insult", or "mean name". It is not simply "attacking the person", just as a circular argument is not simply "an argument that goes in a circle" (since some arguments can go in circles, but each iteration adds new knowledge).

Kow took the name of "ad hominem" too literally, and made a mistake. I gave her a simple definition, that I grounded in an exterior source; I have seen no external proof that Kow was correct, other than a translation of the word. Don't be too embarassed that you didn't understand what "ad hominem" is either (and hence sided with kow's incorrect opinion on the matter), since it is a very common mistake that I've had to correct more than once. "Ad hominem" is one of the first fallacies that people learn, often even before they are that interested in philosophy, and hence they almost always learn it incorrectly.

Now I know what point you think is false. If you still believe that I'm wrong, find a credible source that says that bringing up relevant facts about a person's life in a debate is ever ad hominem. That is what the definition hinges on.

If this sounds tedious to you, you can imagine how tedious it was to simplify the fallacy to its actual content. Why did I do this? Because one too many jackasses misused the phrase by claiming "ad hominem" in all the wrong places, until I was so sick of hearing it that even valid charges of "ad hominem" sounded insipid. If someone calls you a mean name, just call them a jackass, and say they offended you. Call it an insult. Don't call it "ad hominem". That dilutes the word beyond recognition.

Very few people ever actually commit "ad hominem" for the simple reason that very few people bother to mix logic with insults.

Very few people ever actually commit "ad hominem" for the simple reason that very few people bother to mix logic with insults.

You are very mixed up. I don't know how this conversation started and I don't care to read through it. A few things are for certain... One, you said 'ad-hominem is not just an insult,' and then contradicted yourself above.

If you still believe that I'm wrong, find a credible source that says that bringing up relevant facts about a person's life in a debate is ever ad hominem.

Two, you are trying to create a false dillemma. Ad-hominem is not simply 'either your definition or the opposite of your definition.' That's nonsense.

Three, your definition is just plain wrong. Ad-hom is very very very simple.

It's isn't logic, it isn't necessarily an insult and it goes like this...

"You are (insert characteristic) and therefore you are wrong." I have seen a lot of this shit on this board in a short period of time. Again, this isn't anything against your posts, I barely read them. And this has absolutely nothing to do with pointing out the hypocrisy of someone's argument because of their known actions or sayings.

beebuddy,

"You are (insert characteristic) and therefore you are wrong."

That is one half-true, actually. There are cases in which a characteristic of a person is relevant to the correctness of their claim or argument. (You actually brought up some cases. I'll mention this later.)

The biggest difference between my definition and yours is that I consider the relevance of the characteristic to the argument.

You are very mixed up. I don't know how this conversation started and I don't care to read through it. A few things are for certain... One, you said 'ad-hominem is not just an insult,' and then contradicted yourself above.

I said ad hominem is not the same as an insult, and then said that it happens most often when people mix logic with insults. Sorry, that is not a contradiction. Maybe because I used the word "insult" twice you got confused somehow?

Two, you are trying to create a false dillemma. Ad-hominem is not simply 'either your definition or the opposite of your definition.' That's nonsense.

It's nonsense only so far as you didn't bother to actually read what I said. I was giving conditions for my definition to be false. That does not imply that the opposite of my definition is suddenly true, only that my definition is false.

The sole condition that would make my definition of the fallacy false (since this is the source of contention) is that if relevant facts about the person are brought up to disprove an argument, the argument is automatically invalid. If relevant facts are not allowed in argument, and are considered ad hominem, then my definition is false.

Otherwise, my definition is identical to yours, and has been this whole time. (However, Kow's original definition is still false.)

It's isn't logic, it isn't necessarily an insult and it goes like this...

It is logic, unfortunately. The only way to understand why something is a fallacy is to look at it logically.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with pointing out the hypocrisy of someone's argument because of their known actions or sayings.

Yes, it has everything to do with that, because those are relevant facts about (or characteristics of) a person that can be used against them in argument, to invalidate their argument. If ad hominem was as you believe it is, then you would not be able to use any known fact about a person against their arguments, ever. Their known actions or sayings would have no relevance to their claims. This is ludicrous, especially if someone is making a claim about themselves.

I think the only reason you think I'm confused is because I'm running circles around you. Your inability to attentively read my posts probably also adds to your impression.

Maybe I should make these posts shorter, and lightly prod you until you realize for yourself that what I'm saying is true. That seems to be the most graceful way to correct someone's mistakes.

By the way, I'd rather spend the next three weeks arguing about fallacies than in the middle of an insult fest. Just a personal preference.

Mr. beebuddy,

Isn't this place something else?

The chap that claims upset, wrote: "I urge you to look back in this thread and, with your dispassionate unbiased view, try to find a way not to construe kow as being a total bitch from her very first post."

The following is that ever so bitchy post:

kow: "What's the deal with the widespread usage of argumentum ad hominem, on this forum?"

Pretty nasty, eh? :)

These guys gave all sorts of legless and downright stupid justification for their immature behaviour. The excuses included love and a desire to help each other grow on a personal level.
Oddly enough though, when their game was played, they cried "Foul".

It's time to move on.

kowtaaia wrote:Mr. beebuddy,

Isn't this place something else?

The chap that claims upset, wrote: "I urge you to look back in this thread and, with your dispassionate unbiased view, try to find a way not to construe kow as being a total bitch from her very first post."

The following is that ever so bitchy post:

kow: "What's the deal with the widespread usage of argumentum ad hominem, on this forum?"

Pretty nasty, eh? :)

These guys gave all sorts of legless and downright stupid justification for their immature behaviour. The excuses included love and a desire to help each other grow on a personal level.
Oddly enough though, when their game was played, they cried "Foul".

It's time to move on.

Yes. Marvin K Mooney, will you please leave now.



A whimsical tale of unmotivated exclusion.

kowtaaia wrote:It's time to move on.

Clearly. Unless of course you want to continue repeating the fact that ad-hom means "addressing (attacking) the individual and not the issue." I think that's the last time for me, in this thread anyway.

G'day.

bee,

Clearly. Unless of course you want to continue repeating the fact that ad-hom means "addressing (attacking) the individual and not the issue." I think that's the last time for me, in this thread anyway.

Finally, you gave a definition that is correct. Notice that there are two conditions for ad hominem (when earlier you had just one):

1. Attacking the individual, and
2. Not attacking the issue.

If attacking the individual is identical to attacking the issue, then both conditions are not met. Attacking the individual, in that case, is relevant; therefore, it is not ad hominem. It is funny how you kept changing the definition of ad hominem, and acted as though you were not. Now you have a definition that is identical to mine, but is not the same definition you used earlier.

Oh, the ways in which people learn! Half the time, they don't even realize that they've been learning -- here, you even went so far as to say that you've been repeating yourself, when you have not been doing so. My definition has not changed: yours has.

Have fun in another thread, or at another forum.

You are pitiable in your pettiness and seem to be hallucinating. It's time for you to stop your embarrassing behaviour. Don't drink alcohol when you are on medication. This is good advise. A lady friend is manic-depressive and she sometimes displays herself as you are doing. Please, let's all stop this.

Peace.

Petty or not, I'm correct. I felt that it was essential to rub this victory in yours and bee's faces, since you guys were being such assholes earlier. You called me stupid. Bee called me delusional. Now, you picked up on my admission of being bipolar, and am saying I'm hallucinating (Another unfounded lie. When will they end?).

No, none of those things. I'm relishing a victory over someone who refuses to admit that his opponent (me) was right from the beginning. You still won't admit it.

So... IN YOUR FACE KOW! If you can't survive the embarassment of learning something from someone you thought was an idiot, go to another forum.

(By the way, only the biggest of pricks use someone's mental illness as an attack against them before they know the person's regular behaviour.)

Trevor,

Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't make it true. You were incorrect in your definition of ad-hom at the beginning and you remain so. Your mental illness just simply explains your behaviour. The 'stupid' comment is retracted.

My definition is identical to beebuddy's new definition.

Mine: "irrelevant facts about a person's life"
Bee's: "attacking the individual, and not the issue."

The condition for mine:
1. Facts must be relevant to the argument

The condition for Bee's:
1. Not-(Attacking the individual, and not addressing the argument)
Therefore:
2. Either not attacking the individual, or addressing the argument.
Therefore:
3. Don't attack the person unless you are addressing the argument while doing so.
Therefore:
4. Facts must be relevant to the argument.

Is that too hard for you to follow? Do you need a refresher course in logic?

By the way, constantly repeating something doesn't make it false. Neither you nor bee has continued to use the same definition, which implies that your earlier ones WERE false. Mine, by being consistent, is actually more likely to be true than yours. Again: IN YOUR FACE.

...just to add...

Trevor,

You were the one that brought your mental illness into the arena, as back-up for what you were saying. You can't then turn around and say that it's off limits to bring it up. If you have some sort of guilt with regard to it, then just say so and it won't be mentioned again. It's nothing to be ashamed of; it's just a disease.

My illness is not off-limits, but it's very hard for someone who doesn't suffer from the same illness to make judgements about it. If you bring it up, your assumptions are likely to be false. Bring it up at your own discretion, but remember that you aren't my psychiatrist, nor are you a family member who has known my regular behaviour for a long period of time. It's an illness: when you say I'm hallucinating, it is pretty much the same as telling a diabetic that he looks like he needs an insulin injection.

You better be damn sure you know what that word means, and what you just suggested that the person do.

This is just 4 of many:


An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.



Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.


Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it. And remember--it doesn't really matter whether the terms of the attack are true or false. What matters is whether the argument is acceptable, not the person arguing it. After all, even if Adolf Hitler says so, 2 + 2 still equals 4.


Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

kow, that is all well and good, and all true, but it still doesn't disprove me.

In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

When the relevant question is who is making the argument, then it affects whether the argument is valid or not.

If someone claims enlightenment, for instance, the truth of the claim entirely depends on who is making the argument. In that case, it is not ad hominem, since it is relevant.

All I am saying, and this is not actually that bold of a claim (it's almost comical how much difficulty I'm having getting it accepted), is that if bringing the person into the argument is relevant, then it is not ad hominem. If the argument is about a person, then there is no reason to consider a comment about the person to be ad hominem. For instance, in an argument titled "Is Bill Gates a good person?", nothing we say about Bill Gates is ad hominem, since the argument is about him. In fact, it is not even ad hominem when someone with questionable morals tried to declare whether or not Bill Gates is a good person, and someone refutes him on the grounds that his morals are appalling...

Notice that the topic of this thread is a person: Vernon Howard. When we talk about Vernon Howard, and whether or not he is enlightened, we are not commiting the fallacy of ad hominem. The argument is about him. Any fact about him is relevant.

It would, however, be ad hominem if someone were to make a claim about a person who makes a claim about Vernon Howard, since that is irrelevant to this argument. The only claim a person could potentially make about another person and still be topical is that the person is not enlightened or wise, so is not able to tell whether or not Vernon Howard is enlightened or wise.

Trevor,

Let's bring this to a close. Originally, you said that Argumentum Ad Hominem was a specific fallacy that took an irrelevent known fact of another persons life etc., etc.
Right?

The fact is that it also has to do with relevent facts. The irrelevancy has to do with the fact that the person (character, circumstance etc.) has NOTHING to do with the validity of their argument. That is the fact of the matter.

I have stated my case, and you have stated yours. The only difference now is that I believe that there are cases where the person is relevant to the argument, and there is no logical reason to exclude facts about him from the argument.

If anyone has been following this exchange, they can decide for themselves which is more likely. I'll stop rubbing this in your face.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: I'll stop rubbing this in your face.

Yes, do stop embarrassing yourself. That 'stupid' designation is looming. :)

Wow, was so many pages of that really necessary? As far as I'm concerned if you don't instinctively know you've engaged in argumentum ad hominem then all the formal definitions in the world won't help you.

Of course, only a total moron would disagree.....

Hi all,

Vernon Howard is a wonderful teacher in his own right. His book, 'The mystic path to cosmic power' was a major awakening for me years back. Also have enjoyed his other books and lectures of his on cassette and VHS. He may not be for everyone...but some of the criticisms on this thread (only read 1st page - the rest was digressing)...seemed misinformed. It might help to actually get to know the man and his teaching first before judging. Anyways,....hes one of a kind and I honor all teachers who have helped me along the way.

Peace,


paul