OT fallacies (was: The wisdom of the object mentors)
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 01:21:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4480c784$0$31655$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> Some examples:
>
> "What you wrote is wrong, therefore you suck." Not ad-hominem.
>
> "You suck, therefore what you wrote is wrong." Ad-hominem.
>
> "You suck." Not ad-hominem.
>
>
> That is all.
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 01:21:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4480c784$0$31655$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Marshall wrote:
> Keith H Duggar wrote:
>
>>What BB wrote may be called an /insult/ but it is
>>not ad hominem since it is not even an argument.
>>Ad hominem refers to a fallacious >>form of /argumentation/. BB's argumentation followed that >>insult. The insult was not his argument. Do you understand? >>You are not alone in this increasingly common misconception >>that insult = ad hominem.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> Some examples:
>
> "What you wrote is wrong, therefore you suck." Not ad-hominem.
>
> "You suck, therefore what you wrote is wrong." Ad-hominem.
>
> "You suck." Not ad-hominem.
>
>
> That is all.
All three utterances are not by themselves
examples of the "ad-hominem" logical fallacy.
All of them are ad hominem (=personal) attacks,
though.
Stuff like "[X], you are an idiot." and "With all
due respect, what on earth makes you think anything
you write is the least bit interesting?" does not
qualify as the "ad-hominem" logical fallacy when
not used as premisse.
True, but that does not make it right.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html Received on Sat Jun 03 2006 - 01:21:39 CEST