Ad Hominem Argumnentative - BOOKMARK

[djAdvocate]

Ad Hominem argumentative is directed at the person debating the point rather than the point itself.

They are quite common on the board, and some of them are indeed quite personal and offensive. However, in debate, they usually are not directed at someone in a direct way.  the classic method is to undermine the credibility of the debater. this is done in a few different ways, but often, the claim is made against the person's objectivity. so, for example, in a debate where sexual abuse is being discussed, if the point is brought by someone who has experienced sexual abuse, a person might argue that this person's personal bias is rendering their point invalid on the basis of subjectivity. you will note that this is not really a personal attack in the more trivial and common sense. the point might be made with great empathy and understanding, in fact, in the above argument. but still, the underlying logic is that the PERSON is incapable of constructive debate due to their own personal trauma.

i found the below to be a classic example. it is also a red herring, in that i never mentioned the judicial appointments in the original point, the respondent did in his take down. my original point had to do with Germany in 1932.  it probably felt to Germans like they were Making Germany Great Again.  i was precautioning the US to be very suspicious of that feeling, and what it might lead to.  this point was never addressed, and probably won't be.

ymam.proboards.com/post/3179489

[billisonboard]

Sept 21, 2020 14:50:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 21, 2020 8:42:40 GMT -5 @x said:

All countries have some fascist tendency baked in, how can they not.

Just like they have the liberal counterbalance in place also.

I don't see us anywhere near, going by the definition.

I retain a positive outlook because things really aren't nowhere near a traditional fascist state, nor the opposite.

I prefer to stay in the middle, where we are.

i could list the case for it, right here, but really i have no time for such exercises in futility.  you won't agree.  i get that.  i am sure that Germans in 1932 could not see what awaited them, either. 

for the record, i hope i am wrong.  this was once a great country, and could be one again.  but it really has to start in a few short weeks, or i am afraid we have swung outside "stable equilibrium". 

If you had given substance to your claim, it might have been addressed more specifically.

[djAdvocate]

i am not the subject of this thread, bills.  ad hominem is.

i would appreciate it if you can stick to the subject.

thanks.

[NoNamePerson]

Well, I wandered in by mistake when I saw BOOKMARK! Watch Bookmark on PBS! Backing out quietly now - my bad

[sesfw]

&nbsp

Huh?

[billisonboard]

Sept 25, 2020 17:15:09 GMT -5 sesfw said:

&nbsp

Huh?

It is some type of "coding"" that normally appears in the BBCode mode on this site. It does not normally appear when in Visual mode.

[Deleted]

In this case it stands for 'non breaking space'

[Deleted]

Sept 24, 2020 19:00:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Ad Hominem argumentative is directed at the person debating the point rather than the point itself.

They are quite common on the board, and some of them are indeed quite personal and offensive. However, in debate, they usually are not directed at someone in a direct way.  the classic method is to undermine the credibility of the debater. this is done in a few different ways, but often, the claim is made against the person's objectivity. so, for example, in a debate where sexual abuse is being discussed, if the point is brought by someone who has experienced sexual abuse, a person might argue that this person's personal bias is rendering their point invalid on the basis of subjectivity. you will note that this is not really a personal attack in the more trivial and common sense. the point might be made with great empathy and understanding, in fact, in the above argument. but still, the underlying logic is that the PERSON is incapable of constructive debate due to their own personal trauma.

i found the below to be a classic example. it is also a red herring, in that i never mentioned the judicial appointments in the original point, the respondent did in his take down. my original point had to do with Germany in 1932.  it probably felt to Germans like they were Making Germany Great Again.  i was precautioning the US to be very suspicious of that feeling, and what it might lead to.  this point was never addressed, and probably won't be.

ymam.proboards.com/post/3179489

And the counterpoint for my actual post in question, with the correct/no spin, explanation/definition. 


ymam.proboards.com/post/3179545

[djAdvocate]

1) this thread is about ad hominem.

2) i have reviewed the thread in question. i stated in that thread that i saw a lot of similarities, but that i was utterly unconvinced, based on your response that you ever would. i am not sure what you could do to convince me i am wrong. but, assuming i am, i don't have the time for it right now, D23. i literally lost an entire week due to this fire bullshit, and now i am way behind on my work. i have to pay attention to THAT before i can pay attention to stuff as trivial as this board.

i hope you understand. if you want to start a discussion about THAT subject (which apparently you do), i suggest you top that thread and reference the date and time of the post in question to lessen the effort it takes to find the post again.

tyia for your understanding.

[Deleted]

Oct 2, 2020 1:11:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

1) this thread is about ad hominem.

2) i have reviewed the thread in question. i stated in that thread that i saw a lot of similarities, but that i was utterly unconvinced, based on your response that you ever would. i am not sure what you could do to convince me i am wrong. but, assuming i am, i don't have the time for it right now, D23. i literally lost an entire week due to this fire bullshit, and now i am way behind on my work. i have to pay attention to THAT before i can pay attention to stuff as trivial as this board.

i hope you understand. if you want to start a discussion about THAT subject (which apparently you do), i suggest you top that thread and reference the date and time of the post in question to lessen the effort it takes to find the post again.

tyia for your understanding.

Link my post in your op about ad hominem, get my 'post linked' rebuttal. 

It's spot on in regards to a claim of ad hominem, and what it isn't. 

You should of titled this 'oblique referencing', then you would have had something. 

Because that is what happened.

People can read and make up their own minds.

Now you know how forums work.


If you are too busy to be here as I sometimes am, do as I do and don't log in and get your stuff done. 

I will often miss several days in a row of going online.

Too often I see the excuse of I'm too busy, when a point is conclusively proved wrong.


Everyone will be relieved/happy when the fires are put out, be careful over there.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 2, 2020 6:58:52 GMT -5 @x said:

Oct 2, 2020 1:11:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

1) this thread is about ad hominem.

2) i have reviewed the thread in question. i stated in that thread that i saw a lot of similarities, but that i was utterly unconvinced, based on your response that you ever would. i am not sure what you could do to convince me i am wrong. but, assuming i am, i don't have the time for it right now, D23. i literally lost an entire week due to this fire bullshit, and now i am way behind on my work. i have to pay attention to THAT before i can pay attention to stuff as trivial as this board.

i hope you understand. if you want to start a discussion about THAT subject (which apparently you do), i suggest you top that thread and reference the date and time of the post in question to lessen the effort it takes to find the post again.

tyia for your understanding.

Link my post in your op about ad hominem, get my 'post linked' rebuttal. 

It's spot on in regards to a claim of ad hominem, and what it isn't. 

You should of titled this 'oblique referencing', then you would have had something. 

Because that is what happened.

People can read and make up their own minds.

Now you know how forums work.


If you are too busy to be here as I sometimes am, do as I do and don't log in and get your stuff done. 

I will often miss several days in a row of going online.

Too often I see the excuse of I'm too busy, when a point is conclusively proved wrong.


Everyone will be relieved/happy when the fires are put out, be careful over there.

i am not a big fan of unsolicited advice.  i am even less of a fan of being lectured to about stuff i already know.

how about this: you don't tell me what to do, and i won't tell you what to do.  deal?

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2020 9:54:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 2, 2020 6:58:52 GMT -5 @x said:

Link my post in your op about ad hominem, get my 'post linked' rebuttal. 

It's spot on in regards to a claim of ad hominem, and what it isn't. 

You should of titled this 'oblique referencing', then you would have had something. 

Because that is what happened.

People can read and make up their own minds.

Now you know how forums work.


If you are too busy to be here as I sometimes am, do as I do and don't log in and get your stuff done. 

I will often miss several days in a row of going online.

Too often I see the excuse of I'm too busy, when a point is conclusively proved wrong.


Everyone will be relieved/happy when the fires are put out, be careful over there.

i am not a big fan of unsolicited advice.  i am even less of a fan of being lectured to about stuff i already know.

how about this: you don't tell me what to do, and i won't tell you what to do.  deal?

See the OP on this.  (first bolded) 

In question per Oxford. (second bolded)

[djAdvocate]

Oct 4, 2020 9:51:39 GMT -5 @x said:

Oct 3, 2020 9:54:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am not a big fan of unsolicited advice.  i am even less of a fan of being lectured to about stuff i already know.

how about this: you don't tell me what to do, and i won't tell you what to do.  deal?

See the OP on this.  (first bolded) 

In question per Oxford. (second bolded)

I wasn't advising anyone, nor was I asserting expertise.  I am merely observing what I see.

I invite debate on the subject of ad hominem, because it is a somewhat subtle thing.

unfortunately, nobody has engaged in it.  but that is ok, too.

as I said before, I have limited time.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2020 15:47:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 4, 2020 9:51:39 GMT -5 @x said:

See the OP on this.  (first bolded) 

In question per Oxford. (second bolded)

I wasn't advising anyone, nor was I asserting expertise.  I am merely observing what I see.

I invite debate on the subject of ad hominem, because it is a somewhat subtle thing.

unfortunately, nobody has engaged in it.  but that is ok, too.

as I said before, I have limited time.

It's not subtle, mostly boring, to me anyway. 

Anyone can look it up, the definition is quite simple. 


ymam.proboards.com/post/3179545

[djAdvocate]

I think the better example is on the thread itself, but to each their own.

[Deleted]

As of producing that opinion, nothing else would be expected.     


Link to original post shown in the OP, with answering/defining post.


ymam.proboards.com/post/3179545 

[djAdvocate]

board: I am sure most of you are utterly bored with this exchange, so I will save you the effort of clicking on the link.

this raging shitshow started because D23 THOUGHT I was accusing HIM of being a Nazi.  I never evern really considered that idea, because I have been posting here for seven years, and even the most radical posters here don't do that.  I am hardly a radical poster.  I think I am pretty measured.  and I NEVER engage in name-calling.  I think that I have EARNED the benefit of the doubt, and I think that I deserved it in this instance.

however, I actually APOLOGIZED for any perceived insult in this case.  i am starting to regret that, as the assertion that D23 has superior knowledge to me about fascism keeps getting repeated even though:

1) it has precisely DICK to do with the subject of this or any other thread.

2) it is a classic ad hominem attack.

i will note that a second layer of baseless insult has taken place at the accusation of ad hominem.  ad hominem CAN be personal.  no question.  but more often, in CIVIL DEBATE it is used to discredit posters.  the standard forms are "you can't speak to this subject because you are a member of the victim class of the subject being discussed", and "i have a PhD on this subject, and you are still in diapers, therefore you have no standing to even debate this topic".  it is the latter that is being deployed here, and i am just POINTING IT OUT.  it might or might not be TRUE.  D23 might know vastly more about Naziism than me.  but that is actually not up for debate.  the ONLY thing that was up for debate is whether or not there are similarities between what is going on today and Germany in 1932.  if you don't think there is, then argue that case based on the merits rather than going after the standing of the poster in the debate.

i would appreciate it if anyone who wants to post on this thread could stick to the subject without referring back to the thread AGAIN.  the comments have been explained here, and there is no need to refer to them again, unless you disagree with the formation of the argument and want to argue the facts of that formation HERE.  i will add the word PLEASE, here because i am actually interested in the topic.  that other thread has it's own topic, which is NOT Ad Hominem.

respectfully,

djlr

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2020 13:23:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

board: I am sure most of you are utterly bored with this exchange, so I will save you the effort of clicking on the link.

this raging shitshow started because D23 THOUGHT I was accusing HIM of being a Nazi.  I never evern really considered that idea, because I have been posting here for seven years, and even the most radical posters here don't do that.  I am hardly a radical poster.  I think I am pretty measured.  and I NEVER engage in name-calling.  I think that I have EARNED the benefit of the doubt, and I think that I deserved it in this instance.

however, I actually APOLOGIZED for any perceived insult in this case.  i am starting to regret that, as the assertion that D23 has superior knowledge to me about fascism keeps getting repeated even though:

1) it has precisely DICK to do with the subject of this or any other thread.

2) it is a classic ad hominem attack.

i will note that a second layer of baseless insult has taken place at the accusation of ad hominem.  ad hominem CAN be personal.  no question.  but more often, in CIVIL DEBATE it is used to discredit posters.  the standard forms are "you can't speak to this subject because you are a member of the victim class of the subject being discussed", and "i have a PhD on this subject, and you are still in diapers, therefore you have no standing to even debate this topic".  it is the latter that is being deployed here, and i am just POINTING IT OUT.  it might or might not be TRUE.  D23 might know vastly more about Naziism than me.  but that is actually not up for debate.  the ONLY thing that was up for debate is whether or not there are similarities between what is going on today and Germany in 1932.  if you don't think there is, then argue that case based on the merits rather than going after the standing of the poster in the debate.

i would appreciate it if anyone who wants to post on this thread could stick to the subject without referring back to the thread AGAIN.  the comments have been explained here, and there is no need to refer to them again, unless you disagree with the formation of the argument and want to argue the facts of that formation HERE.  i will add the word PLEASE, here because i am actually interested in the topic.  that other thread has it's own topic, which is NOT Ad Hominem.

respectfully,

djlr

No I didn't, I thought your "claim of fascism" was weak.  (bolded) 

After reading the extent of this thread, 'raging shitshow' doesn't really come to mind. 

The first line in your OP is quite accurate.

Quote;  Ad Hominem argumentative is directed at the person debating the point rather than the point itself.
 

Link to the post in the OP, and answer. 

ymam.proboards.com/post/3179545

[djAdvocate]

ok. let's use my Nazi post as an example.

in that post, i compared today to 1932 Germany. in my way of thinking, that is an ANALOGY. it was not directed at you or any other poster.

if i appeared to be saying "you are making the same mistake the Germans made", that is all it was. i was actually in a reflective mood when i wrote that. i was actually WONDERING what they were thinking and feeling in 1932. did they anticipate the horror that awaited them? i doubt it.

i think it is a mistake to downplay the possibilities in the US. that is ALL i was saying. no offense to you or anyone else. i was prepared to let it go. but every post you make, i am becoming less so.

[djAdvocate]

Quote; Ad Hominem argumentative is directed at the person debating the point rather than the point itself.

right. i didn't direct it at you.
but you absolutely directed your remarks at me.

make sense>?

[swamp]

yes, there are some posters here who are really bad at logical arguments.  

[swamp]

Oct 9, 2020 12:28:19 GMT -5 @x said:

Or so good at it, that there is no argument. 

Um, no.  

[swamp]

Oct 9, 2020 12:32:52 GMT -5 @x said:

Oct 9, 2020 12:30:50 GMT -5 swamp said:

Um, no.  

This is just filler.   

No. This is a way to politiely get out of arguing with someone who is not very good at arguing.  

[Deleted]

Oct 9, 2020 12:00:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok. let's use my Nazi post as an example.

in that post, i compared today to 1932 Germany. in my way of thinking, that is an ANALOGY. it was not directed at you or any other poster.

if i appeared to be saying "you are making the same mistake the Germans made", that is all it was. i was actually in a reflective mood when i wrote that. i was actually WONDERING what they were thinking and feeling in 1932. did they anticipate the horror that awaited them? i doubt it.

i think it is a mistake to downplay the possibilities in the US. that is ALL i was saying. no offense to you or anyone else. i was prepared to let it go. but every post you make, i am becoming less so.

My post is easily defended as not Ad hominem.

The first line in your OP says as much. Quote; "Ad Hominem argumentative is directed at the person debating the point rather than the point itself."


I have little interest in the 'why' you attempted this claim of Ad Hominem, only the topic of Ad Hominem itself, as you wished in a previous post.

Quote, reply #8   "1) this thread is about ad hominem."


If you are going to use my post as an example, did you think I wouldn't define it ? 

ymam.proboards.com/post/3179545

[djAdvocate]

DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is.

that is ad hominem argumentative, bro.

1) you said my name in the reply.
2) you THEN asserted that you knew fascism more than me.

it is classic ad hominem.
your failure to even RECOGNIZE it is making me wonder if I should block you. I mean, really- how much of this back and forth should any reasonable person tolerate?

[billisonboard]

Oct 10, 2020 1:22:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is.

that is ad hominem argumentative, bro.

1) you said my name in the reply.
2) you THEN asserted that you knew fascism more than me.

it is classic ad hominem.
your failure to even RECOGNIZE it is making me wonder if I should block you. I mean, really- how much of this back and forth should any reasonable person tolerate?

He used your name to identify which "claim of facism" he was referencing. He claimed that he possessed a knowledge base that supported his assertion that the claim was weak.

[flan327]

Baby Shark...

Do do doo do doo do...

🦈

[Deleted]

Oct 10, 2020 1:22:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is.

that is ad hominem argumentative, bro.

1) you said my name in the reply.
2) you THEN asserted that you knew fascism more than me.

it is classic ad hominem.
your failure to even RECOGNIZE it is making me wonder if I should block you. I mean, really- how much of this back and forth should any reasonable person tolerate?

No it's not.

I used your name first, to identify the 'claim of fascism'. 

Not Ad Hominem.


Then I asserted I knew what an actual fascist state is, my opinion of my knowledge.

Your claim of a reflection on you, is just that, a claim.

I recognize many things, I'm only aware of how much back and forth I do in discussion, you are free to do as you wish. 


I will continue to defend my post, as the definition is correct.   

ymam.proboards.com/post/3179545

[djAdvocate]

Oct 10, 2020 7:41:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 10, 2020 1:22:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is.

that is ad hominem argumentative, bro.

1) you said my name in the reply.
2) you THEN asserted that you knew fascism more than me.

it is classic ad hominem.
your failure to even RECOGNIZE it is making me wonder if I should block you. I mean, really- how much of this back and forth should any reasonable person tolerate?

He used your name to identify which "claim of facism" he was referencing. He claimed that he possessed a knowledge base that supported his assertion that the claim was weak.

you are intentionally missing the point, since I (and dondub) backed up the claim, a fact which you APPEARED to accept, but are now pretending not to, just to make trouble, I presume.

but once again, the claim to authority is unwelcome in a discussion and constitutes ad hominem.  one can simply say "you have not substantiated your remark".  the fact that he personally called me out, and presumed that I didn't have any basis for it while basically saying that he was the owner of the facts in the argument, is pure ad hominem.

i would suggest that you at least acknowledge that i did back the claim up, or i might be forced to block you, as well- as much as i respect you bills, i have little patience for repeating claims that have long been superseded.

edit: i was fine with the "weak claim" part of the rebuttal, bills- to be clear.  it was the claim to authority that made it an ad hominem.

the claim WAS weak.  that is because it was done WHISTFULLY.  it was not intended to be a deep or provocative point.  it was intended to be a passing remark.  the fact that i got taken to task for it was FINE.  that is part of being on the boards. 

the fact that it was asserted that I (or any other person) was comparatively ignorant was not up for that or any other discussion.

i am not ignorant.  lazy/impatient, often.  ill informed, sometimes.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 11, 2020 12:45:12 GMT -5 @x said:

Oct 10, 2020 1:22:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

DJ's claim of fascism seems a bit weak to me, knowing what an actual fascist state is.

that is ad hominem argumentative, bro.

1) you said my name in the reply.
2) you THEN asserted that you knew fascism more than me.

it is classic ad hominem.
your failure to even RECOGNIZE it is making me wonder if I should block you. I mean, really- how much of this back and forth should any reasonable person tolerate?

No it's not.

it is.  consider yourself blocked.

too bad.  it has been nice arguing with you, up to this point.

but you appear to be more interested in arguing and winning

than learning, which is something i have little patience for.