1712 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

Theist: "God exists and has X, Y, Z properties. Because I say so."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."



That's how it works.

[shadowhawk]

Theist: "God exists and has X, Y, Z properties. Because I say so."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."



That's how it works.

You are joking I am sure. This is evidence I am sure, judging from the typical posts in this topic.

[Duchykins]

Theist: "God exists and has X, Y, Z properties. Because I say so."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."



That's how it works.

You are joking I am sure. This is evidence I am sure, judging from the typical posts in this topic.

It is of course sarcastic, but it is not a misrepresentation of what happens. Most of the things you say, even your syntax, seem quite ridiculous and even incoherent. So since you don't respond differently if approached in a more serious, reasonable manner, there is no reason to make any effort beyond jokes and sarcasm.

Your mind seems to be set: atheists are stupid, atheists are ignorant, atheists are irrational, etc

I have more than a decade's experience in this. If it acts like a bigot, if it talks like a fundy, if it's unresponsive to respectful dialogue, then it is not worthy of any serious time and effort of mine. Engage it only for my own entertainment or the entertainment of others, or for offering information to other people lurking the thread. If engage it at all.

[shadowhawk]

Theist: "God exists and has X, Y, Z properties. Because I say so."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."



That's how it works.

You are joking I am sure. This is evidence I am sure, judging from the typical posts in this topic.

It is of course sarcastic, but it is not a misrepresentation of what happens. Most of the things you say, even your syntax, seem quite ridiculous and even incoherent. So since you don't respond differently if approached in a more serious, reasonable manner, there is no reason to make any effort beyond jokes and sarcasm.

Your mind seems to be set: atheists are stupid, atheists are ignorant, atheists are irrational, etc

I have more than a decade's experience in this. If it acts like a bigot, if it talks like a fundy, if it's unresponsive to respectful dialogue, then it is not worthy of any serious time and effort of mine. Engage it only for my own entertainment or the entertainment of others, or for offering information to other people lurking the thread. If engage it at all.

Name calling. And you are either serious, or like most of the others posting on this topic. Yes, save yourself the time of creating ad hominem attacks.

[Duchykins]

Ad hominem is not a name-calling fallacy. A fallacy is an error in the structure of an argument or reasoning.

'Dumbass' is not an argument, unless you would be trying to argue that that person is a dumbass.

It's not an argument, therefore it cannot be a fallacy.


Gratuitous name calling is just that.

It could be an argument if you said 'you're a dumbass because X Y Z' but it wouldn't be an ad hom.


It's only an ad hom if you said 'you're a dumbass therefore your argument is invalid'.




People who actually understand philosophical logic don't have to be told these things.

Look up the 'ad hominem fallacy fallacy'.

Oh and note that not all cases of ad hominem are fallacious. Bye.

Edited by Duchykins, 08 February 2014 - 04:06 AM.

[N.T.M.]

Ad hominem is not a name-calling fallacy. A fallacy is an error in the structure of an argument or reasoning.

'Dumbass' is not an argument, unless you would be trying to argue that that person is a dumbass.

It's not an argument, therefore it cannot be a fallacy.


Gratuitous name calling is just that.

It could be an argument if you said 'you're a dumbass because X Y Z' but it wouldn't be an ad hom.


It's only an ad hom if you said 'you're a dumbass therefore your argument is invalid'.




People who actually understand philosophical logic don't have to be told these things.

Look up the 'ad hominem fallacy fallacy'.

Oh and note that not all cases of ad hominem are fallacious. Bye.

As an aside, recalling what I know about Latin, the term literally means "to man," and contrary to its more common use, it's actually a reference to invoking emotion (as opposed to logic, for example).

[johnross47]

Theist: "God exists and has X, Y, Z properties. Because I say so."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."



That's how it works.

You are joking I am sure. This is evidence I am sure, judging from the typical posts in this topic.

It is of course sarcastic, but it is not a misrepresentation of what happens. Most of the things you say, even your syntax, seem quite ridiculous and even incoherent. So since you don't respond differently if approached in a more serious, reasonable manner, there is no reason to make any effort beyond jokes and sarcasm.

Your mind seems to be set: atheists are stupid, atheists are ignorant, atheists are irrational, etc

I have more than a decade's experience in this. If it acts like a bigot, if it talks like a fundy, if it's unresponsive to respectful dialogue, then it is not worthy of any serious time and effort of mine. Engage it only for my own entertainment or the entertainment of others, or for offering information to other people lurking the thread. If engage it at all.

He's been told all this so many times it must be permanently burned on his screen. He seems to imagine he can make pronouncements in everybody else's specialities and take offence when they put him right. He has said silly things about maths science psychology etc but never accepts that others might know more about it. As for logic; he preaches and shouts about his expertise but frequently gets it wrong, and never produces the logical justification for his claims about errors.

[Deep Thought]

Name calling is the lowest form of argumentation(conversation?) and I'm probably the only one who's guilty of that if even, everyone else has been civil with you.

Were you indoctrinated into believing in God? I imagine you live in a community where critical examination of the church doctrines and whatever else Christianity preaches is frowned upon.

Edited by Deep Thought, 08 February 2014 - 03:28 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Ad hominem is not a name-calling fallacy. A fallacy is an error in the structure of an argument or reasoning.

'Dumbass' is not an argument, unless you would be trying to argue that that person is a dumbass.

It's not an argument, therefore it cannot be a fallacy.


Gratuitous name calling is just that.

It could be an argument if you said 'you're a dumbass because X Y Z' but it wouldn't be an ad hom.


It's only an ad hom if you said 'you're a dumbass therefore your argument is invalid'.




People who actually understand philosophical logic don't have to be told these things.

Look up the 'ad hominem fallacy fallacy'.

Oh and note that not all cases of ad hominem are fallacious. Bye.

Ad Hominem
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...-tu-quoque.html

[shadowhawk]

Theist: "God exists and has X, Y, Z properties. Because I say so."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."



That's how it works.

You are joking I am sure. This is evidence I am sure, judging from the typical posts in this topic.

It is of course sarcastic, but it is not a misrepresentation of what happens. Most of the things you say, even your syntax, seem quite ridiculous and even incoherent. So since you don't respond differently if approached in a more serious, reasonable manner, there is no reason to make any effort beyond jokes and sarcasm.

Your mind seems to be set: atheists are stupid, atheists are ignorant, atheists are irrational, etc

I have more than a decade's experience in this. If it acts like a bigot, if it talks like a fundy, if it's unresponsive to respectful dialogue, then it is not worthy of any serious time and effort of mine. Engage it only for my own entertainment or the entertainment of others, or for offering information to other people lurking the thread. If engage it at all.

He's been told all this so many times it must be permanently burned on his screen. He seems to imagine he can make pronouncements in everybody else's specialities and take offence when they put him right. He has said silly things about maths science psychology etc but never accepts that others might know more about it. As for logic; he preaches and shouts about his expertise but frequently gets it wrong, and never produces the logical justification for his claims about errors.

More make believe nonsense. Do you like personal attack?

Name calling is the lowest form of argumentation(conversation?) and I'm probably the only one who's guilty of that if even, everyone else has been civil with you.

Were you indoctrinated into believing in God? I imagine you live in a community where critical examination of the church doctrines and whatever else Christianity preaches is frowned upon.

I grew up in an atheist family and have repeatedly said so. All this is off topic.

[Deep Thought]

Theist: "God exists and has X, Y, Z properties. Because I say so."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."



That's how it works.

You are joking I am sure. This is evidence I am sure, judging from the typical posts in this topic.

It is of course sarcastic, but it is not a misrepresentation of what happens. Most of the things you say, even your syntax, seem quite ridiculous and even incoherent. So since you don't respond differently if approached in a more serious, reasonable manner, there is no reason to make any effort beyond jokes and sarcasm.

Your mind seems to be set: atheists are stupid, atheists are ignorant, atheists are irrational, etc

I have more than a decade's experience in this. If it acts like a bigot, if it talks like a fundy, if it's unresponsive to respectful dialogue, then it is not worthy of any serious time and effort of mine. Engage it only for my own entertainment or the entertainment of others, or for offering information to other people lurking the thread. If engage it at all.

He's been told all this so many times it must be permanently burned on his screen. He seems to imagine he can make pronouncements in everybody else's specialities and take offence when they put him right. He has said silly things about maths science psychology etc but never accepts that others might know more about it. As for logic; he preaches and shouts about his expertise but frequently gets it wrong, and never produces the logical justification for his claims about errors.

More make believe nonsense. Do you like personal attack?

Name calling is the lowest form of argumentation(conversation?) and I'm probably the only one who's guilty of that if even, everyone else has been civil with you.

Were you indoctrinated into believing in God? I imagine you live in a community where critical examination of the church doctrines and whatever else Christianity preaches is frowned upon.

I grew up in an atheist family and have repeatedly said so. All this is off topic.

If it is not the case that you were indoctrinated, then you must have come to these conclusions on your own. That's crazy.

Don't you practice critical thinking?

Also, finally a shadowhawk "off topic" reply that actually makes sense.

Edited by Deep Thought, 08 February 2014 - 07:51 PM.

[Duchykins]

Ad hominem is not a name-calling fallacy. A fallacy is an error in the structure of an argument or reasoning.

'Dumbass' is not an argument, unless you would be trying to argue that that person is a dumbass.

It's not an argument, therefore it cannot be a fallacy.


Gratuitous name calling is just that.

It could be an argument if you said 'you're a dumbass because X Y Z' but it wouldn't be an ad hom.


It's only an ad hom if you said 'you're a dumbass therefore your argument is invalid'.




People who actually understand philosophical logic don't have to be told these things.

Look up the 'ad hominem fallacy fallacy'.

Oh and note that not all cases of ad hominem are fallacious. Bye.

Ad Hominem
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...-tu-quoque.html

You can copy and paste. Congratulations. Yet you fail to understand.

While Nizkor does not offer incorrect or misleading information, it is not a comprehensive source on logical fallacies and it's why I never cite it to others. The ad hom articles in particular do not explain how ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious, do not make any attempt to correct the popular misconception that ad hom is a 'name calling' fallacy (this is not the same as saying name calling in the middle of a debate is never fallacious) and do not explain what an inverse ad hominem is.

Another example of a popular misconception is that circular reasoning is always fallacious. In fact, a circular argument is logically valid, and sometimes even sound, but often useless. That is where the actual problem is.

Edited by Duchykins, 10 February 2014 - 12:37 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins:
You can copy and paste. Congratulations. SH: Thank you. Yet you fail to understand.

ShadowHawk, SH: What?
If I read something in a book which was 100% true and copy and pasted it, would it still be true?
MEDIA FALLACY
1. A. clams B. uses the wrong media, therefore their arguments are invalid. Examples may be, quill pens, typewriters, computers, videos, movies, news papers, books, codes, cartoons, pictures, etc..
2. The attempt is to control the discussion by objecting to the media. The media has little to do with truth

Duchykins:
While Nizkor does not offer incorrect or misleading information, it is not a comprehensive source on logical fallacies and it's why I never cite it to others. The ad hom articles in particular do not explain how ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious, do not make any attempt to correct the popular misconception that ad hom is a 'name calling' fallacy (this is not the same as saying name calling in the middle of a debate is never fallacious) and do not explain what an inverse ad hominem is.

SH: So what do you cite since your complaint seems to be Nizkor. It is not comprehensive but of the several hundred sources on the net, obviously you have one you feel is?. Perhaps a book is what you accept as comprehensive.. I have many, perhaps I have it. So far what you have said is not very comprehensive. You can both name call and engage in ad hominem attacks, at the same time.

Duchykins:
Another example of a popular misconception is that circular reasoning is always fallacious. In fact, a circular argument is logically valid, and sometimes even sound, but often useless. That is where the actual problem is.

SH: So, are you accusing Nizkor of circular reasoning?

[Castiel]

So far the answer seems to be no!!!

As stated in the video above. Disbelief does not require evidence to support it, It is the natural state you require evidence to begin believing. That said, while not all conceivable gods are covered, there is evidence and logic against Judaism chrstianity and islam.

[IronLife]

So far the answer seems to be no!!!

As stated in the video above. Disbelief does not require evidence to support it, It is the natural state you require evidence to begin believing. That said, while not all conceivable gods are covered, there is evidence and logic against Judaism chrstianity and islam.

On the contrary, when contemplating existence and the universe, one does have to justify their belief in philosophical materialism (or naturalism). If you applied this standard to other facets of life and argumentation then it would be palpably absurd.

[Duchykins]

Duchykins:
You can copy and paste. Congratulations. SH: Thank you. Yet you fail to understand.

ShadowHawk, SH: What?
If I read something in a book which was 100% true and copy and pasted it, would it still be true?
MEDIA FALLACY
1. A. clams B. uses the wrong media, therefore their arguments are invalid. Examples may be, quill pens, typewriters, computers, videos, movies, news papers, books, codes, cartoons, pictures, etc..
2. The attempt is to control the discussion by objecting to the media. The media has little to do with truth

Duchykins:
While Nizkor does not offer incorrect or misleading information, it is not a comprehensive source on logical fallacies and it's why I never cite it to others. The ad hom articles in particular do not explain how ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious, do not make any attempt to correct the popular misconception that ad hom is a 'name calling' fallacy (this is not the same as saying name calling in the middle of a debate is never fallacious) and do not explain what an inverse ad hominem is.

SH: So what do you cite since your complaint seems to be Nizkor. It is not comprehensive but of the several hundred sources on the net, obviously you have one you feel is?. Perhaps a book is what you accept as comprehensive.. I have many, perhaps I have it. So far what you have said is not very comprehensive. You can both name call and engage in ad hominem attacks, at the same time.

Duchykins:
Another example of a popular misconception is that circular reasoning is always fallacious. In fact, a circular argument is logically valid, and sometimes even sound, but often useless. That is where the actual problem is.

SH: So, are you accusing Nizkor of circular reasoning?

Is English your first language? I'm just asking because you have very bizarre and irrational answers. Sometimes it just seems that way due to language barriers though.

I am on a tablet and pulling up multiple tabs to post some links here is annoyingly inefficient compared to a desktop PC or laptop. So no I will not bother to waste my time looking up and posting things you will simply turn right around andndisregard because in your world it is impossible for you to be wrong. If you ACTUALLY are interested in learning more about ad hom, I suggest checking the Wiki page, also check out a site called 'fallacyfiles', there is also a university level philosophy and logic encyclopedia which I forget the name of at the moment, and two others I forget the names of.

But now that I think of it, you never bothered to look up the ad hominem fallacy fallacy, so why should I waste any more time on your willfully ignorant tush?

[johnross47]

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is thelogical 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.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals."

Hopefully it should be clear that neither A's argument nor B's argument is ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn't be allowed out of fairyland.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow."

B's argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. This does not logically follow."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A's sentence does not logically followbecause A knows nothing about logic. B is still addressing the substance of A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word "evidently" indicates that B is basing his opinion of A's logical skills on the evidence of A's statement. Therefore, B's sentence is a sarcastic way of saying that A's argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A's argument. He is not attacking the person instead of the argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You know nothing about logic."

Even now, we can't conclude that B's reply is ad hominem. It could well be, and probably is, the case that B is basing his reply on A's argument. He is not saying that A's argument is flawed because A knows nothing about logic; instead, he is using A's fallacious argument as evidence to present a newargument: that A knows nothing about logic.
Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong", and not "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an ignorant person." The latter statement may be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. And you're an asshole."

B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with A's argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A is part of B's argument, or that B thinks it undermines A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You're an asshole."

B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. And you're an asshole."

Again, B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Fuck you."

Not ad hominem. B's abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request for A to cease the discussion.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."

B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument."

B's reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."

B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)

A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn't a murderer, and so can't be a criminal."
B: "Well, you're a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument."

Harder to call this one. B is addressing A's argument, but perhaps unwittingly.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Wrong! If a weasel isn't a rodent, then it must be an insectivore! What an asshole!"

B's argument is logically fallacious, and he concludes with some gratuitous abuse, but nothing here is ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."

B's argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A's credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it's not ad hominem. B's reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with A's argument, in using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly, B is in fact trying to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, and a lizard isn't a mammal, so it can't be a rodent."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is sound, and not ad hominem. B's reply is again ad hominem.

A: "B is a convicted criminal and his arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is ad hominem, since it attempts to undermine all of B's (hypothetical) arguments by a personal attack. B's reply is not ad hominem, since it directly addresses A's argument (correctly characterising it as ad hominem).

A: "All politicians are assholes, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're an asshole."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound. Either way, from the given context, we cannot conclude that it is ad hominem: it's not an attempt to undermine B's (hypothetical) arguments by abusing him, but instead an attempt to establish that B is an asshole. B's reply is ad hominem, since by incorrectly using the term "ad hominem", he is trying to undermine A's argument by claiming that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound; but I think most of us would sympathise with B and class it as fallacious, and ad hominem. This is because we do not accept the premise that all politicians are liars. There is a false premise that lies behind all ad hominem arguments: the notion that all people of type X make bad arguments. A has just made this premise explicit.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "That does not logically follow."
A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?"
B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q."
A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal."
B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks."
A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot. HOME OPINIONS GAMES REVIEWS FULL INDEX ABOUT
this is from;http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html It should probably be copied into all the topics shouted at by SH.

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is thelogical 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.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals."

Hopefully it should be clear that neither A's argument nor B's argument is ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn't be allowed out of fairyland.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow."

B's argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. This does not logically follow."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A's sentence does not logically followbecause A knows nothing about logic. B is still addressing the substance of A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word "evidently" indicates that B is basing his opinion of A's logical skills on the evidence of A's statement. Therefore, B's sentence is a sarcastic way of saying that A's argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A's argument. He is not attacking the person instead of the argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You know nothing about logic."

Even now, we can't conclude that B's reply is ad hominem. It could well be, and probably is, the case that B is basing his reply on A's argument. He is not saying that A's argument is flawed because A knows nothing about logic; instead, he is using A's fallacious argument as evidence to present a newargument: that A knows nothing about logic.
Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong", and not "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an ignorant person." The latter statement may be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. And you're an asshole."

B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with A's argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A is part of B's argument, or that B thinks it undermines A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You're an asshole."

B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. And you're an asshole."

Again, B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Fuck you."

Not ad hominem. B's abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request for A to cease the discussion.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."

B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument."

B's reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."

B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)

A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn't a murderer, and so can't be a criminal."
B: "Well, you're a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument."

Harder to call this one. B is addressing A's argument, but perhaps unwittingly.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Wrong! If a weasel isn't a rodent, then it must be an insectivore! What an asshole!"

B's argument is logically fallacious, and he concludes with some gratuitous abuse, but nothing here is ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."

B's argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A's credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it's not ad hominem. B's reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with A's argument, in using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly, B is in fact trying to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, and a lizard isn't a mammal, so it can't be a rodent."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is sound, and not ad hominem. B's reply is again ad hominem.

A: "B is a convicted criminal and his arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is ad hominem, since it attempts to undermine all of B's (hypothetical) arguments by a personal attack. B's reply is not ad hominem, since it directly addresses A's argument (correctly characterising it as ad hominem).

A: "All politicians are assholes, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're an asshole."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound. Either way, from the given context, we cannot conclude that it is ad hominem: it's not an attempt to undermine B's (hypothetical) arguments by abusing him, but instead an attempt to establish that B is an asshole. B's reply is ad hominem, since by incorrectly using the term "ad hominem", he is trying to undermine A's argument by claiming that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound; but I think most of us would sympathise with B and class it as fallacious, and ad hominem. This is because we do not accept the premise that all politicians are liars. There is a false premise that lies behind all ad hominem arguments: the notion that all people of type X make bad arguments. A has just made this premise explicit.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "That does not logically follow."
A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?"
B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q."
A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal."
B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks."
A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot. HOME OPINIONS GAMES REVIEWS FULL INDEX ABOUT
this is from;http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html It should probably be copied into all the topics shouted at by SH.

[Duchykins]

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is thelogical 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.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals."

Hopefully it should be clear that neither A's argument nor B's argument is ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn't be allowed out of fairyland.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow."

B's argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. This does not logically follow."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A's sentence does not logically followbecause A knows nothing about logic. B is still addressing the substance of A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word "evidently" indicates that B is basing his opinion of A's logical skills on the evidence of A's statement. Therefore, B's sentence is a sarcastic way of saying that A's argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A's argument. He is not attacking the person instead of the argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You know nothing about logic."

Even now, we can't conclude that B's reply is ad hominem. It could well be, and probably is, the case that B is basing his reply on A's argument. He is not saying that A's argument is flawed because A knows nothing about logic; instead, he is using A's fallacious argument as evidence to present a newargument: that A knows nothing about logic.
Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong", and not "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an ignorant person." The latter statement may be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. And you're an asshole."

B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with A's argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A is part of B's argument, or that B thinks it undermines A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You're an asshole."

B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. And you're an asshole."

Again, B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Fuck you."

Not ad hominem. B's abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request for A to cease the discussion.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."

B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument."

B's reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."

B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)

A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn't a murderer, and so can't be a criminal."
B: "Well, you're a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument."

Harder to call this one. B is addressing A's argument, but perhaps unwittingly.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Wrong! If a weasel isn't a rodent, then it must be an insectivore! What an asshole!"

B's argument is logically fallacious, and he concludes with some gratuitous abuse, but nothing here is ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."

B's argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A's credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it's not ad hominem. B's reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with A's argument, in using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly, B is in fact trying to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, and a lizard isn't a mammal, so it can't be a rodent."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is sound, and not ad hominem. B's reply is again ad hominem.

A: "B is a convicted criminal and his arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is ad hominem, since it attempts to undermine all of B's (hypothetical) arguments by a personal attack. B's reply is not ad hominem, since it directly addresses A's argument (correctly characterising it as ad hominem).

A: "All politicians are assholes, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're an asshole."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound. Either way, from the given context, we cannot conclude that it is ad hominem: it's not an attempt to undermine B's (hypothetical) arguments by abusing him, but instead an attempt to establish that B is an asshole. B's reply is ad hominem, since by incorrectly using the term "ad hominem", he is trying to undermine A's argument by claiming that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound; but I think most of us would sympathise with B and class it as fallacious, and ad hominem. This is because we do not accept the premise that all politicians are liars. There is a false premise that lies behind all ad hominem arguments: the notion that all people of type X make bad arguments. A has just made this premise explicit.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "That does not logically follow."
A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?"
B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q."
A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal."
B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks."
A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot. HOME OPINIONS GAMES REVIEWS FULL INDEX ABOUT
this is from;http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html It should probably be copied into all the topics shouted at by SH.

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is thelogical 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.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals."

Hopefully it should be clear that neither A's argument nor B's argument is ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn't be allowed out of fairyland.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow."

B's argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. This does not logically follow."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A's sentence does not logically followbecause A knows nothing about logic. B is still addressing the substance of A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word "evidently" indicates that B is basing his opinion of A's logical skills on the evidence of A's statement. Therefore, B's sentence is a sarcastic way of saying that A's argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A's argument. He is not attacking the person instead of the argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You know nothing about logic."

Even now, we can't conclude that B's reply is ad hominem. It could well be, and probably is, the case that B is basing his reply on A's argument. He is not saying that A's argument is flawed because A knows nothing about logic; instead, he is using A's fallacious argument as evidence to present a newargument: that A knows nothing about logic.
Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong", and not "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an ignorant person." The latter statement may be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. And you're an asshole."

B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with A's argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A is part of B's argument, or that B thinks it undermines A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You're an asshole."

B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. And you're an asshole."

Again, B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Fuck you."

Not ad hominem. B's abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request for A to cease the discussion.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."

B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument."

B's reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."

B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)

A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn't a murderer, and so can't be a criminal."
B: "Well, you're a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument."

Harder to call this one. B is addressing A's argument, but perhaps unwittingly.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Wrong! If a weasel isn't a rodent, then it must be an insectivore! What an asshole!"

B's argument is logically fallacious, and he concludes with some gratuitous abuse, but nothing here is ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."

B's argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A's credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it's not ad hominem. B's reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with A's argument, in using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly, B is in fact trying to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, and a lizard isn't a mammal, so it can't be a rodent."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is sound, and not ad hominem. B's reply is again ad hominem.

A: "B is a convicted criminal and his arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is ad hominem, since it attempts to undermine all of B's (hypothetical) arguments by a personal attack. B's reply is not ad hominem, since it directly addresses A's argument (correctly characterising it as ad hominem).

A: "All politicians are assholes, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're an asshole."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound. Either way, from the given context, we cannot conclude that it is ad hominem: it's not an attempt to undermine B's (hypothetical) arguments by abusing him, but instead an attempt to establish that B is an asshole. B's reply is ad hominem, since by incorrectly using the term "ad hominem", he is trying to undermine A's argument by claiming that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound; but I think most of us would sympathise with B and class it as fallacious, and ad hominem. This is because we do not accept the premise that all politicians are liars. There is a false premise that lies behind all ad hominem arguments: the notion that all people of type X make bad arguments. A has just made this premise explicit.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "That does not logically follow."
A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?"
B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q."
A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal."
B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks."
A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot. HOME OPINIONS GAMES REVIEWS FULL INDEX ABOUT
this is from;http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html It should probably be copied into all the topics shouted at by SH.

Thank you very much and well done

[shadowhawk]

So far the answer seems to be no!!!

As stated in the video above. Disbelief does not require evidence to support it, It is the natural state you require evidence to begin believing. That said, while not all conceivable gods are covered, there is evidence and logic against Judaism chrstianity and islam.

Is it rational to have to prove a negative? Yes, there isn’t a car coming before I cross the street. The pot is empty and I can add water to it. This isn’t poison. Science if full of exam[les of prooving negatives. Is there an odd or even nimber of stars in the cosmos? Do tepots orbet the sun? Yes or no.

Remember Russell’s teapot? Russell’s idea, I take it, is we don’t really have any evidence against teapotism, but we don’t need any; the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and is enough to support a-teapotism. We don’t need any positive evidence against it to be justified in a-teapotism; and perhaps the same is true of theism. We don’t need any evidence. By the way, there is evidence of teapots orbiting around the sun and it is possible for more of them.

I think there are a large number — maybe a couple of dozen — of pretty good theistic arguments. None is conclusive, but each, or at any rate the whole bunch taken together, is about as strong as philosophical arguments ordinarily get. I have given some of them in the topic, “Is there evidence for Christianity??”

Does the Atheist have the responsibility to prove a negative?

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...ism/#entry50282

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity..._30#entry504130
http://www.longecity...180#entry509183
http://www.longecity...300#entry512746

Is absence of evidence, evidence for Atheism??

[johnross47]

There are millions of teapots orbiting the sun, as passengers on this planet.

[shadowhawk]

There are millions of teapots orbiting the sun, as passengers on this planet.

Right on, and on the space station and there can be more! But this is not my point.

[johnross47]

The idea that the atheist has to do more than say, "I don't see any evidence for your God," is indefensible. It depends on no more than simple assertion. You tell me about your god. I say it strikes me as no more valid than Peter Pan. End of story. You can't ask me to prove that something I see no evidence for doesn't exist. I am not adopting a position. That is it. I see no reason to adopt a position that is different from the position I was in before you told me. I have been told something and now have the knowledge of having been told, but it hasn't convinced me to begin believing something new. I have no new belief to defend. I don't believe in flying spaghetti monsters either, and don't expect anyone to seriously demand that I prove they are not real. I don't care how much sophistry or dodgy casuistry WL Craig deploys; I've watched his horrible videos before and hope not to watch them again; so much dishonesty and badly used logic is very offensive.

There are millions of teapots orbiting the sun, as passengers on this planet.

Right on, and on the space station and there can be more! But this is not my point.

It's a joke. Not a great one I admit, but a joke none-the-less; you have frequently failed to identify joke remarks so maybe a little guidance here might help avoid much pointless comment.

[shadowhawk]

Johnross47 http://www.longecity...390#entry643241
It is a huge, massive, cut and paste quote for which Duchykins gave you a “well done.” He wont even answer me when I quote something.

Do you think this means you have not majored in logical Fallacies? Google, “Logical Fallacies,” if you want many sources. Let me try something shorter which it seems you claim you are not guilty of.

Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 is a moron.

Therefore, Y is not true.
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1456607529

Here are the sources and evidence: http://www.longecity...120#entry641551
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554
http://www.longecity...120#entry642621
http://www.longecity...120#entry642815

[johnross47]

"I think there are a large number — maybe a couple of dozen — of pretty good theistic arguments. None is conclusive, but each, or at any rate the whole bunch taken together, is about as strong as philosophical arguments ordinarily get. I have given some of them in the topic, “Is there evidence for Christianity??”"
-This is the piling shit-high-and-expecting-it-to-turn-into-gold fallacy. 100 errors don't make a correct argument. All of the arguments referred to have been comprehensively trashed elsewhere.

Johnross47 http://www.longecity...390#entry643241
It is a huge, massive, cut and paste quote for which Duchykins gave you a “well done.” He wont even answer me when I quote something.

Do you think this means you have not majored in logical Fallacies? Google, “Logical Fallacies,” if you want many sources. Let me try something shorter which it seems you claim you are not guilty of.

Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 is a moron.

Therefore, Y is not true.
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1456607529

Here are the sources and evidence: http://www.longecity...120#entry641551
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554
http://www.longecity...120#entry642621
http://www.longecity...120#entry642815

I never use that form. You will find examples of my derogatory style further up the pasted material. I always attack the argument, but not always politely. That is not ad hom. I pasted it because he couldn't.

Edited by johnross47, 13 February 2014 - 09:33 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The idea that the atheist has to do more than say, "I don't see any evidence for your God," is indefensible. It depends on no more than simple assertion. You tell me about your god. I say it strikes me as no more valid than Peter Pan. End of story. You can't ask me to prove that something I see no evidence for doesn't exist. I am not adopting a position. That is it. I see no reason to adopt a position that is different from the position I was in before you told me. I have been told something and now have the knowledge of having been told, but it hasn't convinced me to begin believing something new. I have no new belief to defend. I don't believe in flying spaghetti monsters either, and don't expect anyone to seriously demand that I prove they are not real. I don't care how much sophistry or dodgy casuistry WL Craig deploys; I've watched his horrible videos before and hope not to watch them again; so much dishonesty and badly used logic is very offensive.

There are millions of teapots orbiting the sun, as passengers on this planet.

Right on, and on the space station and there can be more! But this is not my point.

It's a joke. Not a great one I admit, but a joke none-the-less; you have frequently failed to identify joke remarks so maybe a little guidance here might help avoid much pointless comment.

It is always a joke. The subject IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? I take it your answer is No.

[shadowhawk]

"I think there are a large number — maybe a couple of dozen — of pretty good theistic arguments. None is conclusive, but each, or at any rate the whole bunch taken together, is about as strong as philosophical arguments ordinarily get. I have given some of them in the topic, “Is there evidence for Christianity??”"
-This is the piling shit-high-and-expecting-it-to-turn-into-gold fallacy. 100 errors don't make a correct argument. All of the arguments referred to have been comprehensively trashed elsewhere.

Johnross47 http://www.longecity...390#entry643241
It is a huge, massive, cut and paste quote for which Duchykins gave you a “well done.” He wont even answer me when I quote something.

Do you think this means you have not majored in logical Fallacies? Google, “Logical Fallacies,” if you want many sources. Let me try something shorter which it seems you claim you are not guilty of.

Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 is a moron.

Therefore, Y is not true.
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1456607529

Here are the sources and evidence: http://www.longecity...120#entry641551
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554
http://www.longecity...120#entry642621
http://www.longecity...120#entry642815

I never use that form. You will find examples of my derogatory style further up the pasted material. I always attack the argument, but not always politely. That is not ad hom. I pasted it because he couldn't.

Another good example

[johnross47]

None of that is evidence of anything except your psychological state. What that is only you know. The comments you complain of above do actually attack the argument; they point out that two wrongs don't make a right.....no matter how many falsehoods you heap up, the argument still fails. Twenty errors don't equal one truth. That is not ad hom.; it is simply true, but not expressed deferentially.

[Duchykins]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

[shadowhawk]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

[sthira]

Say a little prayer to god to give us evidence for atheism.  Pray like this:

"Dear god: please make shadowhawk go away."

If shadowhawk goes away (quits posting) then god may have answered the prayer and may exist.  But if shadowhawk doesnt go away, then we may have more evidence for atheism.

Everyone hold your breath and let's see if god exists.