Are you sick of people not knowing what ad hominem is?

[InkL0sed]

What in the world is "in the context of an argument" supposed to mean?

The bottom line is that if the insult is presented as the reason for the argument you're making, it's ad hominem. If it's not, it isn't. Believe it or not, it is quite possible to, "in the context of an argument", both insult someone and make a logical argument that has nothing to do with the other person's intelligence.

And in fact no, I did not demonstrate what you're talking about. I called you stupid, but that was not part of the argument I was making. In fact, it was a digression. I am not trying to prove that you are stupid (even though you are), but I felt it necessary to point out that you are. I am intentionally distracting you from what I'm actually saying because it's amusing to watch you make an ass of yourself.

"I am not trying to prove that you are stupid (even though you are), but I felt it necessary to point out that you are." - It's absolutely unnecessary to call me stupid during our debate. Besides the fact that it's a flame, it does absolutely nothing to promote your argument

If you'd stopped there, I might have thought you had finally understood. However, I know you better than that; you didn't fool me!

and whether you intend it as a fallacy of logic or not, it is is a fallacy of logic. Whether it is an ad hominem attack or a different fallacy can be determined through rigorous analysis. I'd be happy to determine specifically which fallacy you are using there, but you'd have to meet me half way and admit that my intelligence level has no place in the debate first.

I am saying that it can't be a fallacy of any kind. A fallacy occurs when you use faulty logic in an attempt to support an argument. My saying you're stupid is not an attempt to support my argument. It is merely an insult meant to express my spite. I happen to dislike stupid people.

I do admit that your intelligence has no place in a "debate" (I use quotes because this isn't even a debate; this is you misunderstanding the definition of a word, which seems to happen a lot. Incidentally, that indicates that you are stupid).

If I had said, "You are wrong about insults being ad hominem attacks because you are stupid", that would have been a (rather hilarious) ad hominem. However, that is not what I said. I merely explained that a fallacy cannot exist outside of a logical argument (and then pointed out that you are stupid as a side-note).

It can't be a "fallacy of logic" (I use quotes because "fallacy" is always "of logic", by definition) because it isn't logic (nor does it attempt to be).

[ViperOverLord]

They ('insults/trolling/spamming/derailing != ad hominem') aren't completely included in any logical fallacy is what we're saying, in some situations they are used as part of fallacies, in some situations they aren't.They don't have to be ad hominem, nor do they have to be fallacious at all.

All of those things would be fallacies of logic in one form or another when used as an argumentative means for or against the premise of an argument. There are some less common exceptions in which these means would not be ad hominem attacks I suppose; let's just say that for the sake of argument at least. But even conceding that point, it really doesn't matter much to your OP (below) in which you seem to be making the implication that these things (insults/trolling/spamming/derailing) are not generally ad hominem attacks (especially as it pertains to this forum).

"Seriosuly, i think people just like the way it sounds or something.

insults/trolling/spamming/derailing != ad hominem, srsly"

You seem to be making the argument that these things don't gener

If i just say "hey that obama guy sure is stupid", what fallacy could i possibly be commiting? I'm just expressing an oppinion.

I never said that an opinion was a fallacy. Where we see the fallacies regarding the stupid card is people using the stupid characterization of another poster (or person the topic is about) as a means of proving his/her argument. That generally leads itself to an ad hominem style attack.

[ViperOverLord]

What in the world is "in the context of an argument" supposed to mean?

The bottom line is that if the insult is presented as the reason for the argument you're making, it's ad hominem. If it's not, it isn't. Believe it or not, it is quite possible to, "in the context of an argument", both insult someone and make a logical argument that has nothing to do with the other person's intelligence.

And in fact no, I did not demonstrate what you're talking about. I called you stupid, but that was not part of the argument I was making. In fact, it was a digression. I am not trying to prove that you are stupid (even though you are), but I felt it necessary to point out that you are. I am intentionally distracting you from what I'm actually saying because it's amusing to watch you make an ass of yourself.

"I am not trying to prove that you are stupid (even though you are), but I felt it necessary to point out that you are." - It's absolutely unnecessary to call me stupid during our debate. Besides the fact that it's a flame, it does absolutely nothing to promote your argument

If you'd stopped there, I might have thought you had finally understood. However, I know you better than that; you didn't fool me!

and whether you intend it as a fallacy of logic or not, it is is a fallacy of logic. Whether it is an ad hominem attack or a different fallacy can be determined through rigorous analysis. I'd be happy to determine specifically which fallacy you are using there, but you'd have to meet me half way and admit that my intelligence level has no place in the debate first.

I am saying that it can't be a fallacy of any kind. A fallacy occurs when you use faulty logic in an attempt to support an argument. My saying you're stupid is not an attempt to support my argument. It is merely an insult meant to express my spite. I happen to dislike stupid people.

I do admit that your intelligence has no place in a "debate" (I use quotes because this isn't even a debate; this is you misunderstanding the definition of a word, which seems to happen a lot. Incidentally, that indicates that you are stupid).

If I had said, "You are wrong about insults being ad hominem attacks because you are stupid", that would have been a (rather hilarious) ad hominem. However, that is not what I said. I merely explained that a fallacy cannot exist outside of a logical argument (and then pointed out that you are stupid as a side-note).

It can't be a "fallacy of logic" (I use quotes because "fallacy" is always "of logic", by definition) because it isn't logic (nor does it attempt to be).

You're right. This isn't a debate. You're like a little kid getting kicks from insulting people. That can hardly be characterized as a debate and therefore I'm not going to be seriously debate with a person that flames and trolls like that. I have self respect and I suggest that you find some and then perhaps you will be able to act more dignified.

I will leave you with this thought. We can bicker about what is and what isn't an ad hominem attack but when I presented the question (below), that people did say they were tired of those cheap tactics that you employed during this vary argument. And they are the same tactics that you routinely employ.

"Are you sick of the Ad hominem attacks in this forum? --You know when people can't debate points, so they try to make the issue about you - Your spelling, grammar, background, character, likability, whatever they can think of, etc. These type of tactics generally coincide with sarcasm, mocking, twisting and straw man arguments."

So far the people voted 10 to 4 that they are tired of those tactics on the board. And so the next time you and your fellow trolls come attacking me and then attempt to tell me how many people I'm supposedly pissing off; well just know that the silent majority have spoken out against your shameful tactics. You seriously need to grow up. Your shameful tactics are seen in a negative light by your peers. Know that as you run your mouth.

[InkL0sed]

That would imply that I have been using ad hominem in this thread, which I have not (I have been insulting you, which is different).

I have achieved something with my insults in this thread. I have demonstrated that you are completely unable to follow a point. You are instead very easily distracted by other aspects of a post, rendering you completely intellectually paralyzed. You are so busy being outraged by my calling you stupid (which, I might add, is just being honest), that you can't follow the point I make. You are blinded by your hatred of me.

As a matter of fact, that is the same root cause of ad hominem. You see nothing but the arguer, instead of the argument itself.

I would like to note that I have handily manipulated you into this hatred. That it was so easily done in such a crude fashion is dumbfounding. You are essentially an online version of the kid who puts his fingers into his ears and screams, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", completely unaware that I'm laughing at you the entire time.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

-Tails

[john9blue]

michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif

[TA1LGUNN3R]

michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif

I don't even wanna know.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

Can a certain statement be considered a flame even if that statement is true?


What I found most useful about this thread is that it provides an excellent and well-documented evidence of VoL's typical behavior. He either doesn't read what's typed, or as the case has been made, he's stupid. I've read this thread twice, and the evidence seems to lean heavily in favor of the latter. The evidence speaks for itself.

Flaming by itself is just flaming. But calling someone "stupid" and explaining why he or she is being stupid (which was well-documented here) is not considered a flame. Baiting depends on the intentions. InkL0sed intentions here are to prove his point, which he defends very well.

[Timminz]

TOTY 2010

[ViperOverLord]

That would imply that I have been using ad hominem in this thread, which I have not (I have been insulting you, which is different).

I have achieved something with my insults in this thread. I have demonstrated that you are completely unable to follow a point. You are instead very easily distracted by other aspects of a post, rendering you completely intellectually paralyzed. You are so busy being outraged by my calling you stupid (which, I might add, is just being honest), that you can't follow the point I make. You are blinded by your hatred of me.

As a matter of fact, that is the same root cause of ad hominem. You see nothing but the arguer, instead of the argument itself.

I would like to note that I have handily manipulated you into this hatred. That it was so easily done in such a crude fashion is dumbfounding. You are essentially an online version of the kid who puts his fingers into his ears and screams, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", completely unaware that I'm laughing at you the entire time.

- I don't hate you, I pity you. If I hated you I would have reported your flames instead of giving you valid advice. You can ask any mod if I reported your flames in this thread. And you can cite this post as my waiver of reporting confidentiality.

- I do realize that manipulation is the end game of trolls, but you haven't manipulated me at all. Nice try though.

[ViperOverLord]

Can a certain statement be considered a flame even if that statement is true?


What I found most useful about this thread is that it provides an excellent and well-documented evidence of VoL's typical behavior. He either doesn't read what's typed, or as the case has been made, he's stupid. I've read this thread twice, and the evidence seems to lean heavily in favor of the latter. The evidence speaks for itself.

Flaming by itself is just flaming. But calling someone "stupid" and explaining why he or she is being stupid (which was well-documented here) is not considered a flame. Baiting depends on the intentions. InkL0sed intentions here are to prove his point, which he defends very well.

You're just not an honest person. I could care less about the half truths and lies you present here.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, what's the point of arguing with you when you won't read anything or fail to comprehend it and hardly ever (perhaps never) ask for clarification? That situation has arisen between you and numerous others in this forum. As I've said before, the evidence speaks for itself.

[ViperOverLord]

Hey, what's the point of arguing with you when you won't read anything or fail to comprehend it and hardly ever (perhaps never) ask for clarification? That situation has arisen between you and numerous others in this forum. As I've said before, the evidence speaks for itself.

Just because I didn't reply to your specific fallacious points, doesn't mean that I did not read it. You were called out for your lies and half truths. I will not debate the lies and dignify your agenda.

[BigBallinStalin]

He shoots, HE SCORES!!!!