Originally posted by DeepThoughtShe simply informed him that one cannot expect to understand what one does not know. This was in response to his attack on Christians and their faith. 😏
Yes it is RJ, she's attacking his point on the grounds that he himself is not a Christian rather than dealing with the substance - that is what makes it an ad hominem argument.
Originally posted by RJHindsClaiming someone isn't able to understand, INSTEAD of addressing the point, is an ad hominem.
She didn't say anything about him not being a Christian. And she did not attack him either. She simply informed him that one cannot expect to understand what one does not know. 😏
Originally posted by FMFShe did say he was not of that faith and that was the reason he did not understand. But I don't see that as an ad hominem attack, because it does not attack him as being too stupid to understand, but just informing him of the reason he did not understand. If you don't know something, how can one understand it? That does address the point.
Claiming someone isn't able to understand, INSTEAD of addressing the point, is an ad hominem.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe ad hominem fallacy is wider than rabid insults. We are not accusing Suzianne of impoliteness, we are accusing her of failing to address the substance of his post.
She did say he was not of that faith and that was the reason he did not understand. But I don't see that as an ad hominem attack, because it does not attack him as being too stupid to understand, but just informing him of the reason he did not understand. If you don't know something, how can one understand it? That does address the point.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it doesn't address the point. It avoids the point by using an ad hominem instead.
She did say he was not of that faith and that was the reason he did not understand. But I don't see that as an ad hominem attack, because it does not attack him as being too stupid to understand, but just informing him of the reason he did not understand. If you don't know something, how can one understand it? That does address the point.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtShe as far as I can discern very rarely if ever addresses the substance of a post.
The ad hominem fallacy is wider than rabid insults. We are not accusing Suzianne of impoliteness, we are accusing her of failing to address the substance of his post.
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedThank you Duchess64, you have crystallised in words what is a rather common problem that being that people assume other people think like they do and that any divergence from that stance is a personal affront to their dignity. I rarely read Suzziannes posts any more because she very rarely if ever has any substance.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAn Ad Hominem logical fallacy is where you say something along the lines of;
Bloody hell. Keep putting it off, but am going to have to go google the meaning of ad hominem.
"You are a stinky person, and therefore your argument is wrong".
Saying "You are a stinky person and your argument is wrong" is not an Ad Hominem.
[Nor is it an argument]
Saying "You are a stinky person" is not an Ad Hominem, it's just an insult.
An Ad Hominem is in the form of an argument where the person making the fallacy
accuses another of being wrong BECAUSE of some supposed fault or trait that makes
them incapable of being correct. And this is done INSTEAD of dealing with the substance
of the argument.
For example: "You're wrong because you're an idiot" is an Ad Hominem fallacy because
being an idiot [even if true] does not stop you from being correct.
However saying "You're an idiot if you think that's a valid position because..." is not an Ad Hominem
because you are not claiming they are wrong because they are an idiot.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut what Suzianne said is not an ad hominen logical fallacy, because it is true that one cannot expect to understand what one does not know. I also do not see it as an insult to inform one of the truth.
An Ad Hominem logical fallacy is where you say something along the lines of;
"You are a stinky person, and therefore your argument is wrong".
Saying "You are a stinky person and your argument is wrong" is not an Ad Hominem.
[Nor is it an argument]
Saying "You are a stinky person" is not an Ad Hominem, it's just an insult.
An Ad Hominem is in ...[text shortened]... hey are wrong because they are an idiot.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Telling finnegan that he doesn't understand the Christian faith because he is not of that faith is an answer to his statement based on Suzianne's belief that one cannot expect to understand what one does not know, which seems true enough and logical to me. 😏
Originally posted by googlefudgeThanks old chap.
An Ad Hominem logical fallacy is where you say something along the lines of;
"You are a stinky person, and therefore your argument is wrong".
Saying "You are a stinky person and your argument is wrong" is not an Ad Hominem.
[Nor is it an argument]
Saying "You are a stinky person" is not an Ad Hominem, it's just an insult.
An Ad Hominem is in ...[text shortened]... hey are wrong because they are an idiot.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Was saved from google by googlefudge.
Now, who's going to save me from the fudge?
