Some pro-State trolls are confused, regarding the definition of "ad hominem". This is a variation of "debating idiots is a waste of time".
If I write "You are stupid!", that is ad hominem. If I write "You believe 'Taxation is not theft!' Therefore, you are stupid.", that is not ad hominem, especially if I give detailed reasons.
This is an important pro-State troll point. "You should never say that someone is stupid." That is false. Some ideas really are stupid. If I give a careful detailed argument, and the other person ignores my points, then they really are stupid. They are a waste of my time.
If you say "I logically refuted 'Taxation is theft!'", and then you ignore my points, then there's no point talking to you anymore. We're literally speaking different languages. At that point, there's nothing left to do but resort to name-calling.
It is important to call out stupid ideas as stupid. If I point out that your idea is stupid, and you ignore my points, then you've successfully convinced me that you are a fool. You've failed a "Turing Test". You've successfully convinced me that you are not an intelligent lifeform.
I shouldn't waste time on people that are less than human. I have too many other potentially useful things to do, rather than wasting time on fools.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
What is "ad hominem"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I couldn't agree more, and it does get frustrating debating bubblebrains and numbskulls who lack basic reasoning skills, have cognitive dissonance, are mentally ill/emotionally damaged, etc. But as the expression goes: you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. So I try to treat such people as you would a child. When teaching a child you have to be extremely patient-- getting angry at or insulting them is counter-productive. But everyone has their limits, and goodness knows I've lost my cool at times and let some of these people really have it with both barrels. I'm only human.
Like strawman, ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance.
Which means that comments about a person is only a fallacy if it is not relevant to the point that must be proven.
"Your argument is wrong because you're stupid" is an ad hominem. Your argument could be valid despite your stupidity, which means your intelligence is irrelevant when considering its validity.
On the other hand, "You're stupid" is the conclusion of an argument, not the premise of one. Since it is a conclusion, not a premise, it calls for some evidence to support it.
As FSK suggests, such evidence might include your pro-state trolling...
Well, I guess I'm stupid and should learn to proofread.
That should be "Your argument could be valid despite your stupidity, which means your intelligence is irrelevant when considering your argument's validity."
Post a Comment