Re: OT fallacies
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:41:33 +0200
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>Keith H Duggar wrote: >> >>>How do you know the purpose of those insults? I for one >>>believe they served a /very/ different purpose having >>>little to do with the argumentation here. >> >>What's your take on the purpose?
> some possibilities are:
> 1) warnings to future readers. If a VI is outed frequently
> it increases the likelihood future readers will avoid
> their snake-oil.
> 2) shame as deterrent. If a VI is insulted enough times by
> enough people they /may/ pause to examine themselves.
> 3) venting frustration. Let's not forget the benefit of
> venting some of the extreme frustration VI cause in
> those intelligent enough to realize the damage VI do.
In 1) "snake-oil" is a derogatory reference to hominis argumentation. You would be talking about the fallacy itself instead of merely something like it. Fine by me.
In 3) you talk about damage caused - the venting of frustration wil not repair any.
2) Shame as deterrent - well, further down on you snipped this remark:
>> Babies are our most valuable vociferous ignorants.
Ok. Once in a while shame as deterrent may be effective.
Let's not overdo that, though.
After all it's is so /distracting/.
For a nice distraction:
> ... I'm just pointing out the error in assuming we
> /know/ the purpose of the authors.
The site you quoted about the ad hominem fallacy has a different take on that:
"The phrase denoted an argument /designed/ to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, ..." (my emphasis)
>>The Latin "ad hominem" just means "to(wards) the man". >>I am ignorant of current developments in insultology.
> Ah, I see it just means "to the man" eh?
Yes, and I agree with you that it is mostly used as or refers to "argumentum ad hominem".
> Which man?
You once wrote that you respected ignorance. Are you sincere about that? Don't fake it.
> I guess you just didn't believe me or you
> wanted to have a pissing contest?
> Is that why you decided to contradict the point I
> and Marshall tried to make?
No. In fact I did not contradict the point that
"The insult was not his argument."
Quoting myself from my reply to Marshall Spight's post: "All three utterances are not by themselves examples of the "ad-hominem" logical fallacy."
I took opposition to the suggestion that this
would be in defense for the insults.
Are you defending them?
Again, from the same post:
"True, but that does not make it right.
The insults /do/ constitute personal attacks."
[snip verbous reiteration of a point already agreed on]
> ... Will you now agree that "ad hominem =
> insulting opponent" is a confused understanding of the
> phrase and concept?
Are you defending the insults? Received on Sat Jun 03 2006 - 13:41:33 CEST