Abusive ad hominen attacks are not valid means of argumentation, no matter how often conservatives and Christians wish to implement them.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Ad hominen, Thought of the day |
Author
Recent Comments
septrose14 on Reddit layoffs shelldigger on Thought of the day The Sauciest Duck on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Michael on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Stephen Moreton on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Merry Christmas Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Mele Kalikimaka somdeblahiriyahoocoi… on Thought of the day Michael on Wuhan virus and one last… Quick correction | F… on The A-Unicornist, Bernie Bro…
For the Sake of Science 
:rotfl:
You just earned yourself a place on ASTST (Atheists Say the Stupidest Things).
Honestly, you CANNOT be this idiotic …
linky
Ad hominem arguments are perfectly valid. Ask anyone who has ever had to quesiton a witness, as in trial attorney or police officer.
A. Darwin was a racist.
B. Therefore, evolution is false.
Not valid.
No, I am not as “idiotic” as your interpretation of what I said.
They are valid in impeaching a person, but they say nothing of the argument itself. The very core of an ad hominen attack, especially in the abusive form, is that it ignores the argument being put forth.
Are ad hominem attacks on conservatives valid?
Not as attempts to dismantle their actual arguments.
I see. So we can categorise this post as bigotry rather than hypocrisy then. :)
If you’d like to undermine the use of the word “bigot”, sure.
What .. is there absolutely no way that you could possibly besmirch a group of people according to their political or religious beliefs?
Oh dear, are you trying to redefine bigotry to help your argument?
I’ve actually been planning on making a post about the definition of bigotry due to anti-gay Christians so desperately trying to define their beliefs as not fitting that description. It should be up soon.
Nope. I’m using this one:
Bigot – a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Seems to me if you’re going to attribute a particular vice to a particular group then you’re either trying to make a point (which would make it an ad hominen conclusion and my initial response was justified) or else you’re being a bigot.
The only other option I can fathom is that Mr. Michael was simply pointing out that ad hominen and abusive remarks are worthless to a rational debate. That I would agree with. But why would he go on to single a whole spectrum of people?
My point is about abusive ad hominem attacks. This is where the person making the argument has no relevance to the validity of the argument, yet attacks are still made against said person. My above example of Darwin shows this.
My attack on conservatives and Christians is not an abusive ad hominem. My very point is about common tactics I see them using (and which, for the sake of fairness, liberals will also use, though less often). I am not saying Argument X is invalid because Person A is a Christian or conservative. I am saying Argument X is invalid because it says nothing of the topic at hand (e.g., the Darwin example) – and it happens that I’ve observed Christians and conservatives using this argument disturbingly often.
Then you’re a bigot. How can you possibly know that Christians and conservatives use abusive ad hominem more than liberals?
Wouldn’t it be simple and uncontroversial to say that ad hominem is an invalid form of argument in a scientific debate?
Oh .. then you wouldn’t be slipping in your bigotry, right? That’s the only reason you wrote the “thought”, isn’t it?
Are you dense? Bigotry is intolerance of another view. Unless I’m trying to somehow shut down Christian and conservative voices through some sort of force, it’s hard to call me a bigot. You have no operational definition of the word.
Observation?
No. Are you?
I already gave my operational definition. You seem to have two definitions of the word. Which is bigotry .. “intolerance” or “shutting down things by force”?
Your own .. or .. do you have some sources?
There is a difference between acceptance and intolerance (EDIT: should read “tolerance”). Whereas it is within one’s rights to not accept that black people are equal to whites, it is not okay for that person to also attempt to deny blacks their own rights. That becomes intolerance. It’s also “shutting down things by force” because it is abusing the power of democracy to inhibit the liberty of another individual.
That’s not a surprise to me given that they’re antonyms. :chuckle:
You think a person has the right to believe that black people are inferior to white people? Wow. Where did this come from? Why do you mention it? And why would you believe such a stupid thing?
I’d admit people have the ability to be racist. But not the right.
You are so confused. You keep using words that do not belong where you put them.
Did you know democracies regularly put people in prison?
Typo.
Stupid? Who shall we have head the department of the Thought Police?
So do you suggest we round up all the racists and jail them? Maybe just fines?
The first instance was a typo. I suspect you simply do not comprehend the sentence this time.
A lack of tolerance for an individual or group means active suppression of that individual or group.
Oh, please. Don’t make me qualify every single statement I make as if there is no context. Inhibiting the liberty of an individual through due process of law is not abusing the power of democracy.
Yes, it is stupid to suggest that people have the right to be racists. And why are you now mentioning thought police?
Oh. So that’s why you mentioned thought police. :chuckle:
No. I don’t suggest that. Why would you raise such a worthless side-track?