On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:40:18 -0400, Not Telling but not Being a nutless
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërPost by dead_manOn Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:44:02 -0400, Not Telling but not Being a nutless
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërAd hominem, as a logical fallacy, is simply attacking your opponent's
character in order to discredit his ideas, Bill.
This is your first definition of _ad hominem_.
Post by dead_manPost by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërIn order to attack someone _ad hominem_, that person must first have
presented an _argument_.
This is so ridiculous as to negate any desire I might have fleetingly
entertained to engage you in any debate.
Since you're planning to concede the debate, you should have shut your
yap right there.
I've conceded nothing. Your assertion that I am planning to do so is
simply one more logical fallacy you employ.
"...I promise myself that protracted inane argument with posturing
pedants such as yourself will not be one of them."
"Trying to draw me into any further argument with you, particularly on
this matter, will likely be fruitless though."
"This is so ridiculous as to negate any desire I might have fleetingly
entertained to engage you in any debate."
I don't know how those statements look to you, sport, but I see
someone who is leaving himself a clean shot for the back door when the
heat in the kitchen becomes a bit much.
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërPost by dead_manThe expression now also has a looser use in referring to any
personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It
isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack
him in this personal, ad hominem way.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
This is your second definition of _ad hominem_.
This was presented in an attempt to open your mind to the fact that your
own narrow viewpoint is not the only valid one, despite what you would
so fallaciously have others believe.
_My_ usage is in accord with the common usage of those terms. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem :
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem...
consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or
appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the
argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the
argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of
proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the
argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."
From the Usage section:
"In logic
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is
wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something
discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons
cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument
itself...
Colloquially
In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is
part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem."
See if you can wrap that your narrow mind around the fact that the two
are NOT the same.
Apparently your mind is too
narrowly focused on defining yourself as the ultimate authority on
everything to publicly accept much in the way of input.
1. When I wrote, "If so, I suggest you stick to attempting to outwit
fish; you may have some small success there," you replied, "Implying
my success in the fishing industry is 'small' is yet another logical
fallacy."
Please advise me why my statement is a logical fallacy and yours is
not. TIA
2. I'm always happy to have input from those more knowledgeable than
myself and/or those who enjoy civil discourse. Posturing poopie-heads
get slapped with a dead mackerel.
3. I apologize for making you feel inferior. Truthfully, it's not that
I know so much but that you know so little.
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërI rebutted this in my other post so I'll merely point you to
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ambig.htm
You rebutted no such thing. I'm not sure if that is a logical fallacy
or an outright lie.
<shrug>
"<lol> It took me awhile to figure out why you said this. You have
conflated the meaning of _ad hominem_, the logical fallacy, and the
newer meaning of _ad hominem_, defined as any personal insult."
Excuse me for not putting my words in neon lights.
No matter, it can probably be construed as both.
You may be correct or you may be incorrect but I'm pretty sure that
you can't tell which is which. <g>
Your suggestion that I don't know what it is already is yet another
logical fallacy used by you.
As I'll demonstrate in a bit, you're a posturing poseur, in waters
over his head who is desperately trying to argue about a subject of
which he knows nothing.
Furthermore, your attempt to apply it here is simply proof that you have
no clue what you are talking about.
I'm going to stick those words up your ass, Mr. Google-scholar. <BSEG>
I'm saying simply that whether you consider TA's use of ad hominem a
logical fallacy or a simple insult, whether you consider Bill's use of
ad hominem a logical fallacy or a simple insult, both of them used ad
hominem attacks on the poster they were arguing with and both of them,
in so doing, weakened whatever valid arguments they had by the use of ad
hominem attack. Furthermore, the fact that Bill had so recently
lectured TA on the use of ad hominem made his own use of ad hominem
proof positive of Bill's hypocritical nature.
What you're saying, rather simplistically, is that you can't get it
through your thick head that, despite the fact that both are
colloquially called _ad hominem_, _ad hominem_ (or, more properly,
_argumentum ad hominem_), the logical fallacy, and _ad hominem_,
defined as any personal insult, are NOT one and the same.
You may disagree with that, feel free to do so. You may not, however,
try and suggest that it is a fallacy of equivocation without showing
everyone what an ass you are.
NTBBI is an ass.
An ass has long ears and brays.
Therefore NTBBI has long ears and brays.
'Ows that for a bit of the ol' fallacy of equivocation, my little
pedant?
Pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh.
Unfortunately, your humorous syllogism just exploded my bullshit
detector. As if you haven't already given me enough cues about your
massive ignorance, you attempt to construct a simple syllogism AND get
it wrong!
In deductive logic, one argues from the general to the particular,
thusly:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is mortal.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
(FYI,this is the classical illustration of a deductive argument;
Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher who was mentioned en
passant, if at all, in whatever "school" ill-educated you.)
No one, and I mean NO FUCKING ONE, with any pretense to knowledge of
even basic logic would construct a syllogism with the major premise
second and the minor premise first.
Your pathetic attempts to pretend to knowledge of logic and logical
fallacies and "your attempt to apply it here is simply proof that you
have no clue what you are talking about."
And, before you attempt to claim you made a simple error of
transposition, I'll note that you did the same thing in the other
syllogism you posted:
"No need of any argument there, a syllogism will do quite nicely,
silly little posturing pedant.
Bill contradicts himself often.
Contradicting oneself is hypocritical.
Therefore, Bill must be a hypocrite."
Usually, at this juncture, I say, "Please pardon my horse laff," but,
out of respect for your logical acumen, I'll content myself with a
bray or two.
Fuckin' poopie-headed poseur.
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërPost by dead_manOr,
"It isn't in the best interests of the group for "Bill" to continue
to attack CNS in this personal, ad hominem way. For "Bill" to do
this, so soon after criticizing another poster here for much the
same thing, simply points up his own hypocritical nature."
(The Dead_Man Almanac)
That's very clever of you. Could you scan it and post it? I'd like to
see it in the original crayon. TIA.
Your suggestion that something I may have written would have to have
been done in crayon is yet another logical fallacy.
And your repeated refernces to me as a posturing pedant are, of
course, the very last word in impartial analysis?
Do you ever use logical argument or do you dwell exclusively in the
house of fallacy?
Please excuse me while I bray. <g>
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërPost by dead_manI think some of your positions might have some merit but as you are such
an insufferable, pedantic, self righteous little prick, I will just
continue to disregard them as I have been doing for years.
Fair to middlin'. You frothed quite nicely,
No frothing, simple declarative sentence albeit a tad overstated. Your
assertion that such is "frothing", simply because it is directed at you,
is just another example of your continued use of logical fallacies.
<shrug> When I labeled the mojoes "despicable scum," you replied,
">Despicable scum? Nothing like a bit of the old drama, eh queenie?"
Please advise me why my statement is a logical fallacy and yours is
not. TIA
I don't really know. It's just something poopie-heads do on their way
out the door.
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and Mjølnërand your "I will just continue to disregard [your
positions] as I have been doing for years" lacks the tearful poignancy
of my sweet Zekie-poo's "I mostly let your crap go unread"
So why do you fallaciously attempt to portray them as the same thing?
There is no similarity in either the statement or the intent.
<shrug> The intent of both looks remarkably similar to me. "If you
disagree with me, so be it. If you think I'm [wrong], say so and state
your case."
No doubt a sound you hear ringing in your ears quite often.
Only from poopie-heads, my dear Google-scholar, only from
poopie-heads.
You've sent nobody anywhere.
(When I started our debate, I'd forgotten who you are and I was
puzzled by your vitriolic replies to my first msgs. Your exchanges
with TA last weekend led me to Google alt.argus and I discovered that
we'd crossed swords before and things became a bit clearer.)
Not yet, I ain't, sonny, but I don't think you can take the heat.
1. You cut and ran the last time we tangled.
2. You positions are untenable.
3. Your ignorance of the subject doesn't allow you to make good
arguments for your positions.
4. You've already prepared your excuses ("I promise myself that
protracted inane argument with posturing pedants such as yourself will
not be one of them.") for your retreat with your dignity, such as it
is, intact.
5. You're a poopie-head.
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërI don't participate much on Usenet any more and so far this year I've
only bagged one anarcho-capitalist and one liberal. I won't be adding
you to my trophy wall though because I'm afraid the game warden will
come along and ticket me for shooting small fry in a barrel. <g>
Quite full of yourself, aren't you little pedantic man?
Not quite full, just up to my eyelashes. <g>
And no more full of myself in my treatment of you than you are in your
treatment of TA.
I read, with some amusement, as you attempted to "instruct" TA last
weekend on what you had learned from your frantic Googling. I thought
this was especially precious: "While some consider a red herring to be
a true logical fallacy, others feel it is just a questionable debate
tactic." While accurate, I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't cribbed
it from some web page.
When I have time, I'll mock a few of your more egregious howlers in
that thread.
Ah, your memory serves you well, but it is dated.
I do still own a commercial fishing vessel, yes. I don't, however, fish
it myself any longer. I have a hired captain who takes care of that
while freeing me for other interests,
Best of luck with your studies of logic and rhetoric! <g>
although I promise myself that
protracted inane argument with posturing pedants such as yourself will
not be one of them.
My best guess is that you have a multiple copies of this song:
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërIf so, I suggest you stick to attempting
to outwit fish; you may have some small success there.
Implying my success in the fishing industry is "small" is yet another
logical fallacy.
Damn! And here I thought I was implying you were a halfwit. How stupid
of me. <cringe>
Oh, well, next time, just for you, to aid your understanding I'll
apply just half the wit.
I'll stop here. I plan to make a separate thread about your lack of
appreciation of TA's status as a warezgod anyway. <g>
Toodles
Why is it that you can't just go ahead and make that point? Why did you
not choose to make the point you are going to so long windedly make
below back when you first attempted to lure me into an argument over TA
that you so desperately hoped to be able to win handily?
Rhetorical questions all.
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and Mjølnër<restore>
BTW, we have an unfinished discussion: You accused The Apostle of
having "...a past history of posting reams of incomplete posts and
large quantities of crapware..."
I asked you what was the basis for your claim and I don't remember
seeing your reply.
</restore>
When I first questioned you about your claim, I was puzzled that you
would make such a claim, a claim that I knew to be false. I merely
wished to know the basis for your claim.
Well, first off, I barely remember the post you are on about and have
little to no interest in going back and hashing over some previous
argument I had with someone I dislike, regardless of your silly need to
conclude what you would like to think of as our "unfinished discussion".
That said, I based my statement (which you fallaciously characterize as
a "claim") on years of uploading and downloading, reading usenet,
watching others post, posting many binaries myself, trying to get
complete binaries from various groups, including abwi0, and mulling over
other's opinions while at the same time considering my own personal
experiences.
My opinion was furthered along by reading TA's own assertions of owing
nobody anything and his statement that he was under no obligation to
provide downloaders with fills just because they hadn't been able to get
his posts. Apparently he was too busy posting to worry about that.
Those are paraphrased, he didn't use the exact wording but in essence he
made both those statements.
Taken with the sum of my own extensive personal experience with TA,
those things helped me to form my own opinion that the statement I made
about his activities, the activity he seems to think have granted him
unending status as a "Warez God" regardless of his present and future
behavior, was in essence the truth.
If you disagree, so be it. And so what?
Do you suppose you were alone?
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërIn spite of akula's stupid posting halts, in spite of the
trouble TA had when he started posting through proxies, I filled CD
after CD with warez.
CD after CD? Obsess much?
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërBecause the nfo's were posted separately, I
rarely had to search the web to decide if a ware was worth the d/l.
I've never been able to get warez so effortlessly than when abwi0 was
working.
Well good for you. How nice that it took no effort on your part.
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërSince I KNEW from my own personal experience that TA was one of the
best warez posters to pass this way
Why is it "knew", have you since forgotten?
"Believe" would have been a more honest choice of words than "KNEW".
I simply refused to be drawn into argument by such an obvious ploy as
your silly little trap wherein you beg me to make assertions you are
dying to jump on and refute. I'm under no obligation to you, a person I
mostly ignore, to support or "prove" anything I might say. If you
disagree with me, so be it. If you think I'm lying, say so and state
your case.
Trying to draw me into any further argument with you, particularly on
this matter, will likely be fruitless though.
Post by Not Telling but not Being a nutless coward like Blackhorse and MjølnërI'll assume that you've deep-throated some lying
cocksucker's COCK-and-bull <g> story.
Whoaa there old feller. Talk about frothing.
Must get in some of the homophobic insinuation, nothing like a bit of
the old fellatio-us argument to wind up a diatribe, eh Mr. Being
Ignored?
Despicable scum? Nothing like a bit of the old drama, eh queenie?
No, I don't. Not one bit.
I did no such thing, I'm sure I left a couple of areas out.
A nice, simple yet false statement couched as a logical conclusion drawn
from a logical argument. The fact that it is a false conclusion drawn
from a string of opinion, half truths, lies and false assertion makes it
more than a bit suspect.
Your homework for tonight is goggle yourself all googly eyed and tell us
what logical fallacy (or fallacies) you employed in stating that last.
--
Proud member of
@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@
@@ @@ @@ @@ @@
@@ @@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@
@@ @@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@
@@ @@ @@ @@ @@@
@@ @@ @@ @@ @@@
@@ @@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@
@@ @@@@@@@ @@@@@@@
-=- The Blind Bob -=-
Poking fun at uffie since "for a long time"