Took the M for a stroll

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

  1. android

    android Guest

    And that translates "personal attack".
    EOD
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. android

    android Guest

    You snippet the
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. android

    android Guest

    You snippet the
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #83
  4. android

    Sandman Guest

    Tony, the groups biggest illiterate, is again trying to argue word
    definitions.

    His latest game is that someone has used "ad hominem" to mean "insult" and
    then he's arguing that "ad hominem" doesn't translate to "insult", which is
    all fine and great, but he lacks the wit to understand that even if "ad
    hominem" doesn't translate to "insult", an insult can still be an ad
    hominem.

    You'd think that Tony would have understood by now that arguing word
    definitions in this group has *never* gotten him anywhere. BUt, he is a
    troll and need to argue about anything and everything as long as possible.
     
    Sandman, Jan 5, 2014
    #84
  5. android

    J. Clarke Guest

    No, you are not attacking the person. There is a different Latin phrase
    that means "personal attack". You are attacking the argument by citing
    some irrelevant and possibly distasteful characteristic of the arguer.
    "Going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement because von Braun was a
    Nazi" would be an example of argumentum ad hominem. There is no
    "attack" there. Von Braun _was_ a Nazi. The logical fallacy is that
    his being a Nazi had some relation to the difficulty of going to the
    Moon.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 5, 2014
    #85
  6. android

    Savageduck Guest

    That would be "begging the question" used correctly.
    < http://begthequestion.info >
     
    Savageduck, Jan 5, 2014
    #86
  7. android

    android Guest

    you do not understand the context. "Argument to man" instead of that
    that is relevant to to the discourse >>> personal attack...

    You snippet it but here it is again...

    EOD
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #87
  8. android

    Savageduck Guest

    It might have been EOD, but I snipped nothing, and I was only
    responding to J. Clarke's remark, directing him to, "beg the question"
    as the term he was looking for.

    Who exactly were you responding to?

    As to "ad hominem", < http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem >
     
    Savageduck, Jan 5, 2014
    #88
  9. android

    android Guest

    You're not adding anything of substance here. You say that you were
    responding to Clark. I say: Oki...
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #89
  10. android

    android Guest

    You're not adding anything of substance here. You say that you were
    responding to Clarke. I say: Oki...
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #90
  11. android

    Savageduck Guest

     
    Savageduck, Jan 5, 2014
    #91
  12. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I don't know if I'm the groups [sic] biggest illiterate, but I doubt
    it. At 5'8" and 175 pounds, I'm probably well down the list.
    I have to hand it to you, Jonas. That's one of the slickest weasel
    maneuvers I've seen. You've now come to the light, evidently, because
    you hint that you now understand that "ad hominem" is not a synonym
    for "insult" as you have been using it.

    Further, you've constructed a strawman with that last - somewhat
    muddled - part of the sentence where you say "an insult can still be
    an ad hominem.". You'd be right to say that an insult can be *part*
    of an ad hominem argument because it must contain a diversionary
    attack on the other person. An insult not part of an argument,
    though, is not an ad hominem. We see many posts here where an insult
    is proffered but no argumentative text is included and/or where the
    insult is not an attempt to divert the argument to the person.
    It's not my intent to "gotten" anywhere.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 5, 2014
    #92
  13. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <[email protected]>,
    :
    : > On 2014-01-05 13:44:29 +0000, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    : >
    : > > In article <>, says...
    : > >>
    : > >> In article <>,
    : > >>
    : > >>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 05:01:21 -0500, "J. Clarke" <>
    : > >>> wrote:
    : > >>> : In article <>, says...
    : > >>> : >
    : > >>> : > In article <>,
    : > >>> : >
    : > >>> : > >
    : > >>> : > > >In article <>,
    : > >>> : > > >
    : > >>> : > > >> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 05:19:07 +0100, android <>
    : > >>> : > > >> wrote:
    : > >>> : > > >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >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".
    : > >>>
    : > >>
    : > >> And that translates "personal attack".
    : > >
    : > > No, you are not attacking the person. There is a different Latin phrase
    : > > that means "personal attack". You are attacking the argument by citing
    : > > some irrelevant and possibly distasteful characteristic of the arguer.
    : > > "Going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement because von Braun was a
    : > > Nazi" would be an example of argumentum ad hominem. There is no
    : > > "attack" there. Von Braun _was_ a Nazi. The logical fallacy is that
    : > > his being a Nazi had some relation to the difficulty of going to the
    : > > Moon.
    : >
    : > That would be "begging the question" used correctly.
    : > < http://begthequestion.info >
    :
    : you do not understand the context. "Argument to man" instead of that
    : that is relevant to to the discourse >>> personal attack...
    :
    : You snippet it but here it is again...
    :
    : EOD

    IOW, when you say "EOD", it means that you claim an entitlement to have had
    the last word, and not merely that you've said all you intend to say on the
    subject. Point noted.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 5, 2014
    #93
  14. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 2014-01-05 13:44:29 +0000, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    :
    : > In article <>, says...
    : >>
    : >> In article <>,
    : >>
    : >>> : 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".
    : >>>
    : >>
    : >> And that translates "personal attack".
    : >
    : > No, you are not attacking the person. There is a different Latin phrase
    : > that means "personal attack". You are attacking the argument by citing
    : > some irrelevant and possibly distasteful characteristic of the arguer.
    : > "Going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement because von Braun was
    : > a Nazi" would be an example of argumentum ad hominem. There is no
    : > "attack" there. Von Braun _was_ a Nazi. The logical fallacy is that
    : > his being a Nazi had some relation to the difficulty of going to the
    : > Moon.
    :
    : That would be "begging the question" used correctly.
    : < http://begthequestion.info >

    Actually, I don't think I believe that explanation of the meaning of the
    phrase. Note that the article provides no historical context for its support
    of what it calls the "traditional" usage.

    As we all know, the fact that a given position can be found on the Internet
    doesn't make it true.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 5, 2014
    #94
  15. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>,
    :
    : >
    : > >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.
    : > >
    :
    : You snippet the
    :
    : >>EOD

    When you spell "snipped" wrong once, it's a typo and you get a pass. When you
    do it three times, you'd better go look it up. "Snippet" is an entirely
    different word and isn't even a verb.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 5, 2014
    #95
  16. android

    Savageduck Guest


    This is certainly not a case of PIDOOMA or Pulled It Directly Out Of My Ass.

    While what can be found on the internet is not always valid, many
    internet reference sources can be substantiated and that is the case
    with "beg the question" or "petitio principii". Unfortunately, given
    our particular forum we are compelled to look to internet editions of
    recognized authoritative publications.
    < http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petitio principii >
    < http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Beg_the_question >
    < http://www.thefreedictionary.com/petitio+principii >
    < http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/begquestionterm.htm >
    < http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html >

    So, for those doubters, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a
    duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is quite possibly a duck, not a
    chicken.

    While some words can evolve in meaning over time, it is only an
    indication of incorrect usage when an actual defined term or phrase is
    misused because the speaker does not understand the term, or thinks
    they can claim that, because it has been used incorrectly by many, they
    can say it has evolved to a new meaning.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 5, 2014
    #96
  17. android

    J. Clarke Guest

    What wuold be "begging the question"? Claiming that von Braun was a
    Nazi when there is no evidence to support that contention would be
    "begging the question". Trivializing his technical achievements because
    he was a Nazi is argumentum ad hominem.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 5, 2014
    #97
  18. android

    Savageduck Guest

    In the case of your statement; "Going to the Moon wasn't much of an
    achievement because Von Braun was a Nazi." there are several
    interesting elements which might well be "ad hominem" depending on
    context. However, this is also a statement founded in circular logic
    and can have several interpretations.
    1: Going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement. In its self not
    "argumentum ad hominem" as there is no person involved, but it remains
    unsupported.
    2: Fact, good or bad, Von Braun was a member of the Nazi party. As a
    fact this is not "argumentum ad hominem".
    3: Von Braun's party membership has no bearing on his ability as an
    aerospace engineer.
    or
    4: His party membership was the reason for his ability as an aerospace
    engineer. This is "Reductio ad absurdum" reducing the argument to
    absurdity.
    5: The argument is an attack, or slight on Von Braun. ("argumentum ad hominem")

    If Von Braun was a Nazi and an aerospace engineer, does being Nazi
    makes aerospace engineering a Nazi trait?
    Post WWII we are conditioned to think of the Nazi Party as bad (and it was/is).
    So does your statement trivialize "going to the Moon"?

    ....or does it imply that it was easy for Von Braun because he was a
    Nazi. That is an example of "Reductio ad absurdum"?

    ....or is it an "argumentum ad hominem" aimed at Von Braun to support
    the claim that "going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement"?

    Each could apply. However, each of those premises requires a degree of
    circular logic, to presuppose a conclusion. Hence "begging the
    question", or "petitio principii" is used for the argument to be
    assumed as true, or take for granted what is needed to support a total
    fallacy.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 5, 2014
    #98
  19. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    As anyone can tell who reads my posts, it bothers me when people use
    words or terms incorrectly. A misuse grates on me much like a misuse
    of photography term grates on someone who understands how the word or
    term should be used.

    The term "begs the question" is one that I never use in any
    circumstances. I understand the meaning of the term, but far too many
    people don't. Too many people think that it means "that raises the
    question" and use it that way. That's wrong.

    Because it is likely to be misunderstood by many, it's best avoided.
    At best, some readers will interpret it to mean "it raises the
    question" and some will interpret it to mean "a conclusion has been
    reached based on a faulty premise". It's never good to use a phrase
    or a word if a significant number of readers will misunderstand what
    you mean.

    "Ad hominem" is in the same linguistic boat. Some, who don't
    understand the meaning, will take it only to mean "an insult" or a
    derogatory comment about someone. Others will wonder "But how is that
    a diversionary ploy in rebuttal to that point?". It shouldn't be
    used. If someone wants to say "More insults!", let 'em say that.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 5, 2014
    #99
  20. android

    Savageduck Guest

    I agree. It just rubs me the wrong way when I hear it used
    incorrectly, especially by news anchors and morning show presenters. I
    will attack the misuse. There is no valid reason for it to be spoken
    other than to explain its origins in Socratic and medieval debate.
    I avoid "begs the question" like the plague. If I have to I will "raise
    a question".
    If I am compelled to challenge an incident where it can be recognised
    in an argument, I would prefer to refer to it as a "circular argument"
    and therefore a failure in logic.
    Yup!
     
    Savageduck, Jan 5, 2014
    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.