Critical Thinking vs. Ad Hominem Argument

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 12:54 pm
@Ruthless Logic,
Ruthless Logic wrote:
First, my arguments are carefully developed and evaluated (won) before they are displayed in written composition. Second, your claim of restatements are laughably ironic, given that 70% of your post is comprised of this accusation, which indicates to me that you do not know what restatement means, and consequently my rejection of your verbage based on a rational and efficient evaluation of your personal capacity. Lastly, your careless paradoxical illustration is simply guilty of being a FALSE ANALOGY(logical fallacy). If an argument is presented identically, along with replicated encased claims, yet differing consensus is measured amongst the intended audience only indicates a wide range of quality receptors(natural world constraint) were present, and does not detract from the logical objectivity or validity of the presented argument.


It seems you missed the point of my post.

I would say that personal attacks made up about 50% of my post, while refutations of your opinion made up the other 50%.

I simply wanted to cover all bases and there were two possible results from this discussion:

1) My logic is sound and ad hominem is an invalid tool of argumentation.

2) My logic is not sound, but because I hold your opinions in low esteem you are incorrect as well.

As to your complaint, if my ad hominem attacks are indeed a valuable rhetorical tool, I should be proud to have my post filled up with them.
 
Ruthless Logic
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 05:53 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
RL, I've gone back and looked, and to be honest I'm not sure what your position is. The writing is unclear. It looks like you're disparaging it as a logical tool but celebrating it as a necessary evil.




Come on, the writing is quite clear, along with an 9th grade vocabulary should make for easy reading. The ad hominem complaint is an idealistic standard, and a COMPLETE DISCONNECT from any rationally consistent standard of logic. I would have to abnegate my complete understanding of logic and the subsequent foundation of self-evident consistency to adopt the careless concept of the ad hominem.

P.S. The ad hominem attack is NOT a necessary evil, on the contrary, it is a natural extension of critical thinking.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:16 pm
@Ruthless Logic,
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 10:52 pm
@Ruthless Logic,
Ruthless Logic;46295 wrote:
Come on, the writing is quite clear, along with an 9th grade vocabulary should make for easy reading.
The words aren't the problem, it's the disorganized presentation.

Ruthless Logic wrote:
The ad hominem complaint is an idealistic standard, and a COMPLETE DISCONNECT from any rationally consistent standard of logic.
So you're saying that logic is inseparable from our need to attack our interlocutors.

I guess that means that the interchange in the debate isn't all that matters -- it's whom you're debating as well.
 
Ruthless Logic
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 02:39 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
The words aren't the problem, it's the disorganized presentation.

So you're saying that logic is inseparable from our need to attack our interlocutors.

I guess that means that the interchange in the debate isn't all that matters -- it's whom you're debating as well.




The 2nd level of understanding as it pertains to the ad hominem complaint. The process of producing or exchanging ANY form of actionable or static contemplation of ideas or concepts are ONLY derived from living breathing individual(s). The procedure of emitting the potentiality of this information can clearly be assigned to the engaging individual(s) by empirical measurements. The argument or claim can only be created by these individual(s), and no kind of magical separation can exist during the creation process, or the argument or claim simply never materializes, which clearly reflects a natural world constraint, yet the conjured ideal of the ad hominem complaint proposes the careless consideration of separation. If logic is allowed to prevail, the largest component of the evaluation process demands that the vetting process scrutinizes the source (individual(s)) and if that requires the efficiency of individual and relevant attacks against the claimants, so as to expose their personal capacities for consistent and rational extrapolating, then the process needs to transpire unhindered from careless conjured ideals(ad homimen) that offer complete contradictions to critical thinking.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 04:56 am
@Ruthless Logic,
Ruthless Logic;45768 wrote:
The only ironic confluence to occur is your own confabulation of understanding. Clearly, MFTP demonstrated his own accurate impression of the dubious accusation of the Ad Hominem Argument, which we both concurred. It just that his critical thinking is less refined, consequently exposing him to repeated attacks of credibility.

This is priceless!!

---------- Post added 12-15-2009 at 05:57 AM ----------

Ruthless Logic;46295 wrote:
Come on, the writing is quite clear, along with an 9th grade vocabulary should make for easy reading. The ad hominem complaint is an idealistic standard, and a COMPLETE DISCONNECT from any rationally consistent standard of logic. I would have to abnegate my complete understanding of logic and the subsequent foundation of self-evident consistency to adopt the careless concept of the ad hominem.

P.S. The ad hominem attack is NOT a necessary evil, on the contrary, it is a natural extension of critical thinking.



You can't make this stuff up!
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 07:00 am
@Ruthless Logic,
In all of this it might just be worth mentioning that some ad hominem arguments are not fallacious, and some are fallacious. It depends on what the argument is. Especially, what are the premises, and what is the conclusion.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 07:46 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;111484 wrote:
In all of this it might just be worth mentioning that some ad hominem arguments are not fallacious, and some are fallacious. It depends on what the argument is. Especially, what are the premises, and what is the conclusion.


That can be said about any informal logic fallacy. What's your point?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 07:54 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;111488 wrote:
That can be said about any informal logic fallacy. What's your point?


No, it cannot. Indeed, it cannot be said about any fallacy. No fallacies are not fallacious. (Or, All fallacies are fallacious. By obversion).
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:51 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111469 wrote:
This is priceless!!

You can't make this stuff up!
I cannot believe you resurrected a post by Ruthless Logic. Oh boy. I hope he still gets e-mail alerts when there is a reply to one of his posts.

Mem'ries... all alone in the moonlight... not a sound from the pavement...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:56 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;111525 wrote:
I cannot believe you resurrected a post by Ruthless Logic. Oh boy. I hope he still gets e-mail alerts when there is a reply to one of his posts.

Mem'ries... all alone in the moonlight... not a sound from the pavement...


It is getting near Christmas.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 12:58 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;111525 wrote:
I cannot believe you resurrected a post by Ruthless Logic. Oh boy. I hope he still gets e-mail alerts when there is a reply to one of his posts.

Mem'ries... all alone in the moonlight... not a sound from the pavement...
Kennethamy,

I can agree somewhat with what you are stating in post #27. I think you are right in the respect that some arguments are and are not fallacious, etc. (Note: For anyone else, a fallacy is essentially a defective argument that can be taken to be a correct argument). But only so far as an informal fallacy is concerned. A formal fallacy contains errors in the logical structure of the argument whereas an informal fallacy contains both a flaw in the logical structure as well as flaws in the content. The content could, for all intents and purposes, be correct within the context of a formal fallacy, only its structure is off. It almost seems as though you are not acknowledging the differentiation in informal and formal fallacies.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 01:37 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;111553 wrote:
It was always more like Truthless Logic.

Except for the "Logic" part...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 03:51 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;111553 wrote:
Kennethamy,

I can agree somewhat with what you are stating in post #27. I think you are right in the respect that some arguments are and are not fallacious, etc. (Note: For anyone else, a fallacy is essentially a defective argument that can be taken to be a correct argument). But only so far as an informal fallacy is concerned. A formal fallacy contains errors in the logical structure of the argument whereas an informal fallacy contains both a flaw in the logical structure as well as flaws in the content. The content could, for all intents and purposes, be correct within the context of a formal fallacy, only its structure is off. It almost seems as though you are not acknowledging the differentiation in informal and formal fallacies.


I wrote that all fallacious arguments are fallacious. You mean you don't believe that? And I wrote that some arguments (even ad hominem arguments) are not fallacious. You don't think that all arguments are fallacious do you? What is controversial about any of that, I cannot imagine. Of course, formal fallacies are fallacies. And all informal fallacies are, guess what, fallacies. What have I written that you can possibly disagree with?

But only so far as an informal fallacy is concerned.

What is "only so far as an informal fallacy is concerned"?
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 04:06 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;111525 wrote:
I cannot believe you resurrected a post by Ruthless Logic. Oh boy. I hope he still gets e-mail alerts when there is a reply to one of his posts.

Mem'ries... all alone in the moonlight... not a sound from the pavement...


I'm keeping an eye on this thread, it was always fun arguing with him until the thread had to be closed:devilish:. Ironically, his posts really presented the best examples of ad hominem fallacies I've seen in a while.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 05:41 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;111575 wrote:
Ironically, his posts really presented the best examples of ad hominem fallacies I've seen in a while.
He was an even better example of the sentences you get when you plug the Oxford English Dictionary into a random word generator.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 06:33 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;111596 wrote:
He was an even better example of the sentences you get when you plug the Oxford English Dictionary into a random word generator.


LOL. It was just 9th grade vocabulary though...:Glasses: I wonder if anyone has programed a natural language generator that could beat him in a debate? Of course, there is no way we could verify that it was a true defeat because his concession would be totally arbitrary.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 07:09 pm
@Ruthless Logic,
Arbitrary meaning the words would have to be spit out in a random order and selection that happened to correspond to concessions? Yeah, too true. I remember he had never thanked a single post on this forum until he and I had one fight and I pointed that out. He thanked that post of mine. I was later feeling vindictive so I deleted that post, bringing him back to zero.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 07:27 pm
@Aedes,
I always was afraid he was going to say


http://mymoratorium.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hannity.jpg"YOU'VE BEEN HANNITIZED!"

And just totally let the cat out of the bag...
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:24 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;111571 wrote:
I wrote that all fallacious arguments are fallacious. You mean you don't believe that? And I wrote that some arguments (even ad hominem arguments) are not fallacious. You don't think that all arguments are fallacious do you? What is controversial about any of that, I cannot imagine. Of course, formal fallacies are fallacies. And all informal fallacies are, guess what, fallacies. What have I written that you can possibly disagree with?

But only so far as an informal fallacy is concerned.

What is "only so far as an informal fallacy is concerned"?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 10:04:53