Current Events > Reminder that it's only an 'ad hominem' if your insult is used as an argument

(+) Yeah! (+)

"You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong." Is an Ad Hominem

"You are wrong because x, y, and z, you stupid fucking moron" is perfectly acceptable

i choose to dual wield both

I dismiss arguments I don't like as sophistry instead.

The second makes you look immature and will turn onlookers against you.

BlackOmnimon posted...

The second makes you look immature and will turn onlookers against you.

If I'm insulting someone I'm not really concerned with winning points from on-lookers.

Also maturity is overrated and the fetishization of civility is a weapon of the alt-right. Fuck being nice. Be bad.

Kim_Seong-a posted...

of civility is a weapon of the alt-right.

You heard it here first kids, kindergarten is alt right.

Crazyman93 posted...

You heard it here first kids, kindergarten is alt right.

Kindergarten is just an indoctrination camp designed to get kids to spend money at book fairs. God damn you, Scholastic!

Also even kindergarteners know that Gamefreak are bitches for not letting us joing Team Rocket at Nugget Bridge

People dont actually use the second one though, they just say you stupid fucking moron.

And if theyre hot its ad humana humana.

If the person you're arguing with keeps shouting "ad hominem!" while clearly being progressively more shaken, not knowing how to cope, a nimble mind could easily get the better of them and use the ad hominems to your advantage. The point of identifying the ad hominem in an opponent's argument, therefore, is not merely to point out their usage in order to secure debate points (these are not real), but to prepare for their usage and counter effectively. This is the same for other logical fallacies.

Kim_Seong-a posted...

If I'm insulting someone I'm not really concerned with winning points from on-lookers.

Also maturity is overrated and the fetishization of civility is a weapon of the alt-right. Fuck being nice. Be bad.

Being antagonistic tends to make people dig their heels in and refuse to consider your points. So if all you care about is being right go ahead. If you are actually trying to change your mind you aren't doing yourself any favors

Sufferedphoneix posted...

Being antagonistic tends to make people dig their heels in and refuse to consider your points. So if all you care about is being right go ahead. If you are actually trying to change your mind you aren't doing yourself any favors

Also, in a lot of the more polarized debates like abortion or gun control, you really shouldn't be debating to change the other person's mind, because you aren't going to. You should be debating on the premise that there are probably people on the fence observing the debate. If all you've got is personal attacks, well, it makes your entire argument look weak and you could easily lose people to the other side of the debate.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

Being antagonistic tends to make people dig their heels in and refuse to consider your points. So if all you care about is being right go ahead. If you are actually trying to change your mind you aren't doing yourself any favors

no one changes their mind in internet arguments anyway lol

I've noticed in a lot of online arguments and debates some people think that calling out logical fallacies by name is an actual debate tactic. Someone is insulting you instead of responding to your arguments, and they think just shouting "AD HOMINEM! HE DID AN AD HOMINEM OH MY GOD!" from the top of their lungs is an actual debate point in their favour. Generally I see logical fallacies almost used like an appeal to authority. You call out a fallacy's name and imply or say your opponent used it, bam you scored a point. You can perfectly explain why insulting you instead of addressing your argument isn't an actual argument without just shouting ad hominem. In general if someone committed a logical fallacy against you, you can explain that without naming the fallacy. That's why it's a logical fallacy. Because its fallaciousness can be derived from logic. No reason to invoke its name at all.

averagejoel posted...

no one changes their mind in internet arguments anyway lol

I have. It's rare. But it's happened. I sometimes find myself in debates where i leaned a particular way but wasn't firmly set in that idea.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

I have. It's rare. But it's happened. I sometimes find myself in debates where i leaned a particular way but wasn't firmly set in that idea.

I certainly almost never have an argument online where it doesn't feel like I'm talking to a brick

Look at the pretend professional Internet arguers over here acting like a pro is hilarious

DeadBankerDream posted...

Because its fallaciousness can be derived from logic.

Most "logical fallacies" are actually not this. They are just like weird rules of thumb that people came up with while doing professional debate.