Took the M for a stroll

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by android, Dec 30, 2013.

  1. android

    Sandman Guest

    You are.

    "but the operator of the camera failed."

    Ad hominem, when he wanted comments on the photograph. Typical Tony.
     
    Sandman, Jan 2, 2014
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    An "ad hominem" comment is when there is an attempt to divert the
    discussion with a negative and irrelevant personal comment. What you
    have done is an almost classic example of this.

    My comments were about the photograph, and extensively so, but you
    have snipped these to divert the discussion and included an irrelevant
    personal comment. Try looking up the term "ad hominem" so you will
    not embarrass yourself further.

    It's ironic for a post to contain both a comment about not
    understanding a language and a misuse of language by the same person.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 2, 2014
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. android

    Eric Stevens Guest

    rOn Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:31:30 -0500, Tony Cooper

    That's not an ad hominem. It's a comment.

    Ad hominems are used in argument, not the conclusion.

    http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
    "In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse.
    Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to
    undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of
    addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack
    does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the
    purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical
    fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone;
    the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also
    necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 2, 2014
    #63
  4. android

    android Guest

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

    I have the pulp but if you're unable to get it (the good stuff ;-))
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/merriam-webster/?src=ss
     
    android, Jan 3, 2014
    #64
  5. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yes, that's a good, if succinct, definition. The key words in that
    definition are "rather than". In other words, instead of providing a
    rebuttal to an argument, the person who employs the ad hominem route
    attacks the person in order to divert the discussion.

    A response that legitimately addresses the point of contention, and
    also contains an insult, is not an ad hominem response.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #65
  6. android

    android Guest

    Webster:
    Definition of AD HOMINEM
    1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than
    by an answer to the contentions made
     
    android, Jan 3, 2014
    #66
  7. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    These have that "rather than" again. The intellectual argument has
    been abandoned in favor of, or rather than, an attack to the emotions.
    For ad hominem to exist, there has to be a) a point of contention that
    calls for rebuttal, and b) an attempt to divert the discussion to
    something personal instead of, or rather than, providing a rebuttal.

    It's all about diversion. Instead of addressing your
    counter-argument, I'll call you names and divert the discussion to
    your character. That's an argumentum ad hominem.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #67
  8. android

    Sandman Guest

    Exactly my point.
     
    Sandman, Jan 3, 2014
    #68
  9. android

    android Guest

    Now you've gone silly... The term comes from the latin and means
    basically "personal attack". That's has not changed.

    EOD
     
    android, Jan 3, 2014
    #69
  10. android

    J. Clarke Guest

    'fraid not. In Latin, "ad" is a preposition which can be translated as
    "toward", "to", "up to", or "in the direction of". "Hominem" is the
    accusative singular of "homo" or "person". "ad hominem" per se means
    simply "to the person", not "personal attack". "perferretque ad
    hominem" would be a message to the man for example--there is nothing in
    the phrase "ad hominem" that indicates any kind of attack. "Personal
    attack" would be more like "quod personaliter impetus".

    In the context of debate, "ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad
    hominem", which is an "argument to the man".

    He hasn't "gone silly", what has "gone silly" is the ignorami who have
    turned "ad hominem" into a synonym for "insult".

    Lawyers say "If the law is against you, pound on the facts, if the facts
    are against you, pound on the law, if both are against you, pound on the
    table". Argumentum ad hominem is a form of "pounding on the table".
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 3, 2014
    #70
  11. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    That's part of the term. The full term is argumentum ad hominem, or
    an argument to the person. While people seem to always write "ad
    hominem", that's the short version.

    There has to be an argument for the statement to be correctly used.

    You could look it up, you know. Here's just one page:
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

    J. Clarke has nailed it in another post in this thread when he says
    that what is silly is using the term as a synonym for "insult". Only
    those ignorant of the meaning do that.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #71
  12. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yes, I know it's your point. That demonstrates that you are using a
    term you don't understand. My post was an original comment on the
    image and not a continuation of a discussion, or argument, about the
    image. There is no way to construe my comment as an attempt to divert
    a discussion to the person.

    Your posts, though, are an attempt to divert the discussion from the
    scene chosen for the photograph to a personal discussion. While you
    don't know what an "argumentum ad hominem" means, you managed to
    create one.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #72
  13. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>, says...
    : >
    : > In article <>,
    : >
    : > >
    : > > >In article <>,
    : > > >
    : > > >>
    : > > >> >In article <>,
    : > > >> >
    : > > >> >> rOn Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:31:30 -0500, Tony Cooper
    : > > >> >>
    : > > >> >> >
    : > > >> >> >>In article <>, Tony Cooper
    : > > >> >> >>wrote:
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Tony Cooper:
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > My only comment is "Why did you take it?".
    : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Normally, I'd critique an image only if I see something good
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > and something that could be improved. I wouldn't comment on
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > a photograph that has no redeeming value.
    : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > But, here you've invited comments and even said you "worked"
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > on the post. I can't understand why you'd bother.
    : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Surely, there was some interesting photographable scene
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > around that day. The camera may have passed your test, but
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > the operator of the camera failed.
    : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > Sandman:
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > Tony in a nutshell. He just can't stop at "Why did
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > you take it?", he has to lace the post with some personal
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > insults as well. Why, otherwise he wouldn't be a troll, of
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > course!
    : > > >> >> >>> > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > Tony Cooper:
    : > > >> >> >>> > > There's no insult to Android there.
    : > > >> >> >>> >
    : > > >> >> >>> > Sandman:
    : > > >> >> >>> > Your grasp on the English language is as loose as always.
    : > > >> >> >>>
    : > > >> >> >>> You are commenting on personal aspects, and the rest of us are
    : > > >> >> >>> commenting on the photograph.
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >>> Who's the troll?
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >>You are.
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >> "but the operator of the camera failed."
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >>Ad hominem, when he wanted comments on the photograph. Typical Tony.
    : > > >> >>
    : > > >> >> That's not an ad hominem. It's a comment.
    : > > >> >>
    : > > >> >> Ad hominems are used in argument, not the conclusion.
    : > > >> >>
    : > > >> >> http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
    : > > >> >> "In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse.
    : > > >> >> Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to
    : > > >> >> undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of
    : > > >> >> addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack
    : > > >> >> does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the
    : > > >> >> purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical
    : > > >> >> fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone;
    : > > >> >> the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also
    : > > >> >> necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
    : > > >> >> >
    : > > >> >> >An "ad hominem" comment is when there is an attempt to divert the
    : > > >> >> >discussion with a negative and irrelevant personal comment. What you
    : > > >> >> >have done is an almost classic example of this.
    : > > >> >> >
    : > > >> >> >My comments were about the photograph, and extensively so, but you
    : > > >> >> >have snipped these to divert the discussion and included an irrelevant
    : > > >> >> >personal comment. Try looking up the term "ad hominem" so you will
    : > > >> >> >not embarrass yourself further.
    : > > >> >> >
    : > > >> >> >It's ironic for a post to contain both a comment about not
    : > > >> >> >understanding a language and a misuse of language by the same person.
    : > > >> >
    : > > >> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
    : > > >> >
    : > > >>
    : > > >> Yes, that's a good, if succinct, definition. The key words in that
    : > > >> definition are "rather than". In other words, instead of providing a
    : > > >> rebuttal to an argument, the person who employs the ad hominem route
    : > > >> attacks the person in order to divert the discussion.
    : > > >>
    : > > >> A response that legitimately addresses the point of contention, and
    : > > >> also contains an insult, is not an ad hominem response.
    : > > >
    : > > >Webster:
    : > > >Definition of AD HOMINEM
    : > > >1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    : > > >2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than
    : > > >by an answer to the contentions made
    : > >
    : > > These have that "rather than" again. The intellectual argument has
    : > > been abandoned in favor of, or rather than, an attack to the emotions.
    : > > For ad hominem to exist, there has to be a) a point of contention that
    : > > calls for rebuttal, and b) an attempt to divert the discussion to
    : > > something personal instead of, or rather than, providing a rebuttal.
    : > >
    : > > It's all about diversion. Instead of addressing your
    : > > counter-argument, I'll call you names and divert the discussion to
    : > > your character. That's an argumentum ad hominem.
    : >
    : > Now you've gone silly... The term comes from the latin and means
    : > basically "personal attack". That's has not changed.
    :
    : 'fraid not. In Latin, "ad" is a preposition which can be translated as
    : "toward", "to", "up to", or "in the direction of". "Hominem" is the
    : accusative singular of "homo" or "person". "ad hominem" per se means
    : simply "to the person", not "personal attack". "perferretque ad
    : hominem" would be a message to the man for example--there is nothing in
    : the phrase "ad hominem" that indicates any kind of attack. "Personal
    : attack" would be more like "quod personaliter impetus".
    :
    : In the context of debate, "ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad
    : hominem", which is an "argument to the man".

    In modern English, in this context, "ad" may be best translated as "at".

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 3, 2014
    #73
  14. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    While I recognize and support changes in usage of our language, I
    don't support using an established term with a new meaning when there
    are perfectly good words available to say the same thing.

    If you want to say that a comment is an insult, the word "insult"
    conveys exactly what you want to convey. There's no reason to use "ad
    hominem" in place of "insult", or the phrase "personal attack", other
    than a desire to sound intellectual and an attempt to impress. The
    actual reaction is just the opposite; the mis-user sounds ignorant and
    pretentious to those who understand the meaning.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #74
  15. android

    Sandman Guest

    Incorrect.
     
    Sandman, Jan 3, 2014
    #75
  16. android

    Guest Guest

    doesn't matter what you support. languages evolve and meanings change
    over time, particularly with slang.
    insult and ad hominem may be similar but they're not exactly the same
    and not necessarily interchangeable.
     
    Guest, Jan 3, 2014
    #76
  17. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Of course it matters. It matters to me and to others who respect the
    language. Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, or to the Swedish
    Popinjay, but that's just an indication of ignorance.

    Latin, though, hasn't evolved. This isn't an evolved version of the
    term; it's the actual and original version of the term. And, this
    isn't a slang term.
    They are not remotely similar terms and not at all interchangeable.
    That you don't see this is the problem. The people who *use* them as
    similar terms are ignorant.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #77
  18. android

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Note the word 'argumentum'.
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 3, 2014
    #78
  19. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : >: 'fraid not. In Latin, "ad" is a preposition which can be translated as
    : >: "toward", "to", "up to", or "in the direction of". "Hominem" is the
    : >: accusative singular of "homo" or "person". "ad hominem" per se means
    : >: simply "to the person", not "personal attack". "perferretque ad
    : >: hominem" would be a message to the man for example--there is nothing in
    : >: the phrase "ad hominem" that indicates any kind of attack. "Personal
    : >: attack" would be more like "quod personaliter impetus".
    : >:
    : >: In the context of debate, "ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad
    : >: hominem", which is an "argument to the man".
    : >
    : >In modern English, in this context, "ad" may be best translated as "at".
    : >
    : While I recognize and support changes in usage of our language, I
    : don't support using an established term with a new meaning when there
    : are perfectly good words available to say the same thing.

    I wasn't suggesting a change in the meaning of the term. I was merely
    suggesting that in modern English "argument at the man" expresses it better
    than "argument to the man". I won't be offended if you don't agree.

    : If you want to say that a comment is an insult, the word "insult"
    : conveys exactly what you want to convey. There's no reason to use "ad
    : hominem" in place of "insult", or the phrase "personal attack", other
    : than a desire to sound intellectual and an attempt to impress. The
    : actual reaction is just the opposite; the mis-user sounds ignorant and
    : pretentious to those who understand the meaning.

    Now that's an absolute non sequitur (to introduce another useful Latin term).
    Nothing in that paragraph has anything whatever to do with what I wrote in the
    article to which you ostensibly responded.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 4, 2014
    #79
  20. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    That's an indefinite, or generic, "you" in that paragraph. I could
    have written "If one wants to say..." and avoided the "you". That
    might have eliminated any confusion, but the use of "one" can sound
    pretentious at times.

    I've not known you to insult anyone, so the "you" isn't you.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 4, 2014
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.