A Lesson For All: The Ad Hominem Fallacy

"Well, in your example (somebody being divorced 29 times) wouldn't the past experiences of said person be enough evidence to not trust them on that particular aspect?"

But past experience does not necessitate bad advice. The advice could very well be sound. The probability may not be as high as compared to other people, but saying that their advice is not correct is incorrect. Logical proofs require a conclusion,. You cannot form a conclusion about his ADVICE based on his past EXPERIENCES. The conclusion would not follow the premise. It would be a non sequitur.

As another person, you would probably want him to prove the worth of his advice more than other people. But then that's a different subject, and doesn't deal with logical fallacies as well. I agree with you. I wouldn't take that man's advice, but logically, his advice is completely valid.

OK, I'll try to explain this as simply as I can. So, as I understand it, Ad Hominem falacy is this:

• Person A claims X
• Person B Communicates that Person A is, for example, an idiot
• Claim X is therefore false.

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Why is everyone against me when I just try and explain a RULE of logic? This is ridiculous...."

Because you deny the fact that you've used it yourself, even though you have used it multiple times even within your own thread about the topic? I don't know, but I do know that bitching about the use of it (by anyone) is pointless because in every argument, we've always used it at some point in time.Also the example you have used is flawed because Ad Hominem only applies when it is not contextual (In use of source material)."

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Ha, wow. Sorry, but what is "implied" is not part of a logical argument. What is implied is irrelevant since this is, you know, logic. It deals with premises and conclusions, not implications. "

You have to understand Burton that whether it's technically Ad Hominem or not, when you call someone something like for example "idiot", you are essentially trying to make their arguement invalid. In a way it works in the opposite of Ad Hominem, because you are supplying the objectionable content by calling them an idiot. Even if that isn't Ad Hominem, isn't that just as bad?

"

"Snipzor said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Why is everyone against me when I just try and explain a RULE of logic? This is ridiculous...."

Because you deny the fact that you've used it yourself, even though you have used it multiple times even within your own thread about the topic? I don't know, but I do know that bitching about the use of it (by anyone) is pointless because in every argument, we've always used it at some point in time.Also the example you have used is flawed because Ad Hominem only applies when it is not contextual (In use of source material)."

Show me where I have used it in this thread you idiot. "

"OK, I'll try to explain this as simply as I can. So, as I understand it, Ad Hominem falacy is this:

• Person A claims X
• Person B Communicates that Person A is, for example, an idiot
• Claim X is therefore false.

And you are saying, as long as you don't use Person A's idiocy as an argument for claim X being false, it isn't Ad Hominem. Which is quite correct. I'm not disputing any of this.What I am disputing, is your definition of Communication. Communication does not need to be words. Communication is the transfer of information from one person to another. You can say "You're an idiot", and while you don't explicitly say it's an argument for claim X being false, in the middle of an argument in all likelyhood (it obviously deppends on the individual situation) you are implying it is an argument for claim X being false, so while you didn't explicitly say it, it was still communicated, and thus it's still Ad Hominem. "

So you are saying that anytime someone uses an insult against another, it is an attack on their claim as well? If they are doing that, then it is an ad hominem. If not, it is not an ad hominem. When I insult people, I do so for fun. The insult is an end in itself, the end is not to attack a claim.

How about anytime praises someone? How bout if I say, “he is smart guy”. If I say that, am I automatically saying his claim is true because of this? Of course not. It is not an inverse ad hominem, it is just a compliment. However, if I were to say “he is a smart guy, so he's right”. That is an inverse ad hominem.

You cannot assume that any statement within a conversation becomes a premise itself. Many statements are used to other ends, not always a premise. As I said before, I insult for the purpose of fun and immaturity, the purpose is not to use as a premise in the argument at hand.

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Snipzor said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Why is everyone against me when I just try and explain a RULE of logic? This is ridiculous...."

Because you deny the fact that you've used it yourself, even though you have used it multiple times even within your own thread about the topic? I don't know, but I do know that bitching about the use of it (by anyone) is pointless because in every argument, we've always used it at some point in time.Also the example you have used is flawed because Ad Hominem only applies when it is not contextual (In use of source material)."

Show me where I have used it in this thread you idiot. "

In your previous thread you have done it by referring to others as "Keynesian" when in discussion of economic matters.Your statement about sources in the previous thread.Just two because I'm busy."

"MattyFTM said:

"OK, I'll try to explain this as simply as I can. So, as I understand it, Ad Hominem falacy is this:

• Person A claims X
• Person B Communicates that Person A is, for example, an idiot
• Claim X is therefore false.

And you are saying, as long as you don't use Person A's idiocy as an argument for claim X being false, it isn't Ad Hominem. Which is quite correct. I'm not disputing any of this.

What I am disputing, is your definition of Communication. Communication does not need to be words. Communication is the transfer of information from one person to another. You can say "You're an idiot", and while you don't explicitly say it's an argument for claim X being false, in the middle of an argument in all likelyhood (it obviously deppends on the individual situation) you are implying it is an argument for claim X being false, so while you didn't explicitly say it, it was still communicated, and thus it's still Ad Hominem. "

So you are saying that anytime someone uses an insult against another, it is an attack on their claim as well? If they are doing that, then it is an ad hominem. If not, it is not an ad hominem. When I insult people, I do so for fun. The insult is an end in itself, the end is not to attack a claim.

How about anytime praises someone? How bout if I say, “he is smart guy”. If I say that, am I automatically saying his claim is true because of this? Of course not. It is not an inverse ad hominem, it is just a compliment. However, if I were to say “he is a smart guy, so he's right”. That is an inverse ad hominem.

You cannot assume that any statement within a conversation becomes a premise itself. Many statements are used to other ends, not always a premise. As I said before, I insult for the purpose of fun and immaturity, the purpose is not to use as a premise in the argument at hand.

"

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"AgentJ said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Ha, wow. Sorry, but what is "implied" is not part of a logical argument. What is implied is irrelevant since this is, you know, logic. It deals with premises and conclusions, not implications. "

You have to understand Burton that whether it's technically Ad Hominem or not, when you call someone something like for example "idiot", you are essentially trying to make their arguement invalid. In a way it works in the opposite of Ad Hominem, because you are supplying the objectionable content by calling them an idiot. Even if that isn't Ad Hominem, isn't that just as bad?

"

I am not trying to make their argument invalid by saying that. I am just insulting them. If I used the term "idiot" in order to invalidate their argument, that is definitely an ad hominem. However, using it for the purpose of insulting, and not as a premise of any kind is not. And is it just as bad? No. Insulting might be bad, but it's fun. And this topic isn't about what's bad and what isn't, it's about the technical meaning of ad hominem which has been distorted so much. Whether you find insulting to be bad or not is entirely subjective. Violating a law of logic is wrong universally. There is no opinion on the matter, and I am just trying to explain that law of logic. "

So why exactly do you insult them? You say it's just because it's fun, but frankly I don't believe that. making an entire post with nothing but the word "fuck" is fun, but i don't see you doing that. 

By the way, this topic was originally about expressing your frustration with people using Ad Homninem against you, not about what the technical meaning is. So isn't smearing people just as bad as using Ad Hominem? Its essentially the same, but one is informed, and the other isnt.

I understand that you are trying to explain to people how they have the definition of the phrase wrong, and that some of them are being diffucult.

"

You're really annoying.

"Snipzor said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Snipzor said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Why is everyone against me when I just try and explain a RULE of logic? This is ridiculous...."

Because you deny the fact that you've used it yourself, even though you have used it multiple times even within your own thread about the topic? I don't know, but I do know that bitching about the use of it (by anyone) is pointless because in every argument, we've always used it at some point in time.Also the example you have used is flawed because Ad Hominem only applies when it is not contextual (In use of source material)."

Show me where I have used it in this thread you idiot. "

In your previous thread you have done it by referring to others as "Keynesian" when in discussion of economic matters.Your statement about sources in the previous thread.Just two because I'm busy."

I call people Keynesians all the time. I don't use that as my argument though, I just state a fact. Also, I think it's funny that you consider calling someone a "keynesian" is an insult  haha. And I stated in that last thread, that credibility, sources, etc is irrelevant. But AgentJ cares a lot about sources, so I wanted to reassure him that the sources were legit."

Yea, most people seem to think so.

But what you just said, is not an ad hominem for the record.

If a person has been divorced 29 times, the advice he gives on marriage is equally as valid as someone with a perfect marriage. The advice alone is the only relevant information.

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Snipzor said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Snipzor said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Why is everyone against me when I just try and explain a RULE of logic? This is ridiculous...."

Because you deny the fact that you've used it yourself, even though you have used it multiple times even within your own thread about the topic? I don't know, but I do know that bitching about the use of it (by anyone) is pointless because in every argument, we've always used it at some point in time.Also the example you have used is flawed because Ad Hominem only applies when it is not contextual (In use of source material)."

Show me where I have used it in this thread you idiot. "

In your previous thread you have done it by referring to others as "Keynesian" when in discussion of economic matters.Your statement about sources in the previous thread.Just two because I'm busy."

I call people Keynesians all the time. I don't use that as my argument though, I just state a fact. Also, I think it's funny that you consider calling someone a "keynesian" is an insult  haha. And I stated in that last thread, that credibility, sources, etc is irrelevant. But AgentJ cares a lot about sources, so I wanted to reassure him that the sources were legit."

Context, you use it as a detriment. You use it as a precursor for argument, already guessing what the other person is thinking. You base an entire philosophy in one word, thus in the context you use it as Ad Hominum."

"Snipzor said:

Context, you use it as a detriment. You use it as a precursor for argument, already guessing what the other person is thinking. You base an entire philosophy in one word, thus in the context you use it as Ad Hominum."

I do use it as a detriment. But since I don't commit the ad hominem fallacy, I don't use that detriment as a tool for my argument. I just state a fact, then I debate the argument at hand. "

People argue from a Keynesian perspective, they use keynesian arguments, so I refute them with Austrian arguments. How is that a fallacy?