The name calling on this thread started well before the rmhaire post I liked and that post didn't name call anyone. It started several pages before that post and you weren't the first one doing it, midlevel was.
Last edited:
Explaining MAPD vs Supplement
- Thread starter jack3454
- Start date
Whether that's true or not the post you liked was an example of the post you claimed to disapprove of. He was making a ad hominem attack because other people dare have an opposing opinion.
Or maybe you're using words you really dont understand?
Definition of ad hominem attack: attacking the person rather than the idea. Source: online dictionary. I used that phrase correctly.
In the first post I liked there was no name calling. The second post I liked he said someone was behaving like a kid in their responses and that was in response to being derided by name calling in posts directed at him. Name calling is behavior that children often engage in and usually their parents try to teach them that you shouldn't engage in that kind of behavior. I agree with that.
The crusty old man has been on my case for many years, long before your 211 posts started so don't call me out for something you know nothing about. Go back and look at all my posts and you will see he is there every time to give me shit. So forgive me if I'm sick of it and stick up for myself. He thinks I'm a democrat so that tells you he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about or who he constantly attacks if it doesn't fit his agenda.
You don't know what ad hominem means. It's not simply name-calling. Name-calling isn't necessarily ad hominem.
You are an ***, therefore your idea is stupid (ad hominem)
Your idea is stupid, therefore you are ***. (not ad hominem)
His post is textbook ad hominem. And my post was not. Like I said, you just don't like it when someone you agree with gets a taste of their own medicine.
I don't apologize for being the better bully.
Last edited:
- 1,179
Just mute him... He loves all this back n forth on here, it's fun for him and y'all are just feeding into his ego.
Special Agent
Guru
- 614
ad hominem is a red herring type logical fallacy which is basically attacking the source of the argument instead of the argument itself
Red herring fallacies
[edit]A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.[70][71]
Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying "If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?").[72] In jury trial, it is known as a Chewbacca defense. In political strategy, it is called a dead cat strategy. See also irrelevant conclusion.
- Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Note that "ad hominem" can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent's own commitments. This type of ad hominemis not a fallacy.)
- Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.[73]
- Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.[74]
- Appeal to motive – dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
- Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.
- Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo, 'therefore I leave') – a critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Easily confused with the association fallacy (guilt by association) below.
- Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.[38]
- Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[75][76]
- Appeal to accomplishment – an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion see below.
- Courtier's reply – a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.
- Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.[77]
- Appeal to emotion – manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement.[78]
- Appeal to fear – generating distress, anxiety, cynicism, or prejudice towards the opponent in an argument.[79]
- Appeal to flattery – using excessive or insincere praise to obtain common agreement.[80]
- Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement.[81]
- Appeal to ridicule – mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the opponent's argument.[82]
- Appeal to spite – generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument.[83]
- Judgmental language – using insulting or pejorative language in an argument.
- Pooh-pooh – stating that an opponent's argument is unworthy of consideration.[84]
- Style over substance – embellishing an argument with compelling language, exploiting a bias towards the esthetic qualities of an argument, e.g. the rhyme-as-reason effect[85]
- Wishful thinking – arguing for a course of action by the listener according to what might be pleasing to imagine rather than according to evidence or reason.[86]
- Appeal to nature – judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.[87] (Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name.)
- Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.[88] (opposite of appeal to tradition)
- Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)[89]
- Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.[90]
- Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).[91] (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
- Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.[92]
- Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.[93]
- Association fallacy (guilt by association and honor by association) – arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.[94]
- Logic chopping fallacy (nit-picking, trivial objections) – Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation.[95][96]
- Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.[97][98][99]
- Chronological snobbery – a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, known to be false, was also commonly held.[100][101]
- Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.[102][103]
- Genetic fallacy – a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.[104]
- I'm entitled to my opinion – a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion.
- Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises, in violation of fact-value distinction; e.g. making statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.
- Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[105][106] in violation of fact-value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
- Is–ought fallacy[107] – deduce a conclusion about what ought to be, on the basis of what is.
- Naturalistic fallacy fallacy[108] (anti-naturalistic fallacy)[109] – inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above. For instance, is P∨¬P
does imply ought P∨¬Pfor any proposition P, although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy.
- Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[110]
- Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.[111]
- Tu quoque ('you too' – appeal to hypocrisy, whataboutism) – stating that a position is false, wrong, or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with it.[112]
- Two wrongs make a right – assuming that, if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it.[113]
- Vacuous truth – a claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form no A in B has C, when there is no A in B. For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room.
