An ad hominem is NOT an insult

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

There are insults and there are ad hominens…

For many people on the Internet not actually versed in Philosophy, they tend to confuse the two. Maybe this stems from wishing to appear clever, maybe they have just picked up the phrase from another person ignorant of the origin of the phrase.
If you want to talk about an insult, then there is a perfectly good set of words (see below) that mean insult, “insult” for example.

Ad hominem, on the other hand, is not an insult. It is a short form of argumentum ad hominem , which is an argument made ‘against the man’, rather than against the argument. As such it is not an insult but an informal fallacy.

For example: The chancellor is wrong to cut spending because we need to stimulate the economy, and it is wrong because he went to Eton College.

The first part of the reason is valid as it might actually be a reason the chancellor is wrong. The second part descends into irrelevance as his schooling does nor bear on the topic of fiscal stimulus. Such a statement is likely to be designed to rally support from those that think the Chancellor is a stuck up toff, but has nothing to do with any economic argument.

If I call the Chancellor a stuck-up toff, that is an insult. I am right about that, but that is not an argument about the validity of his budget.
I’m sure when the Labour Party next have a Chancellor he also will most likely be an upper-class toff too.
But these are insults, not ad hominems.
I call then “INSULTS” so that when I use “ad hominem” it is reserved for a species of fallacy that is a useful thing to identify in a philosophical argument.

There are many other words you can use for insults, but ad hominem is not among them:
abuse, affront, cheap shot, contempt, contumely, derision, despite, discourtesy, disdainfulness, disrespect, ignominy, impertinence, impudence, incivility, insolence, invective, libel, mockery, obloquy, offense, opprobrium, put-down, rudeness, scorn, scurrility, shame, slander, slight, snub, superciliousness, taunt, unpleasantry, vilification, vituperation.

2

You must not be very familiar the style of ad homs around here.

Besides, ad hom is what is against the rules because we are supposed to be discussing the topic, not the other member’s credibility.

3

The credibility of the poster is always in question, and is most legitimate to take up. Insulting as well, if you can, then it applies in the hard wiring of the mind, and philosophy shouldn’t be immune to our nature.

However, know your posting this thread in the most backwards part of the site, where people ask questions like ‘What is a vagina’ and ‘Do I exist’- the moderator in this part of the forum keeps the discussions unnervingly stupid by banning anyone with a opinion… and if you look around, you’ll notice most of the deeper threads are buried elsewhere- and are maintained by members who have effectively bitten back at the moderators to the point that they aren’t bothered anymore.

If you google ad hom and this site, you’ll find about a million threads here on this topic, most of them pointed at the very moderators terrorizing the discussion. The moderators here have about as much intellectual finesse as a royal guard in a decaying monarchy, and wouldn’t get too excited about crusading semantics with them- cause their understanding of semantics sucks as bad as their excuses for carrying on as they do. They think they built a garden of eden in this trash heap.

You want to talk about logical fallacies, come into the more stable portions of the site and have a discussion, it’s not wise to do so here with big tony grinning and shutting down threads. The biy has a 4th grade education, and reads well enough to pick up when people are threatening his favorite pass time- keeping the discussion stupid.

You wanna talk about Hobbes? You got the right people, just not here in this section of the site, was just writing to a friend about his attempt to square the circle. Everyone on this forum that survived hates one another, we curse at one another, but get along good enough at times to come together for random discussions… just not usually here. This is the kiddies pool, and you gotta wear the mandatory arm floaties.

I’m not going to read a counter reply here… come up here in a blue moon… head down south a few forums and say hello.

4

An ad hom is a logical fallacy usually but there are examples where it is a perfectly valid argument and sadly some people do not know this. For example if I say you are full of shit because your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry, this is an ad hom and is also clearly a fallacy: the arguments veracity does not rely either on what your mother was or your fathers odour. If however I say you are not justified in your argument because you do not have the expertise to make such an argument and what’s more you should not make any claims to truth based on your inexperience on this subject, this is an ad hominem but it is not a fallacy, (a person who has no knowledge or qualification in the subject of let’s say biology, who claims evolution is wrong because it is against his belief in God not his expertise on the matter at hand). This is not a logical fallacy it is an ad hom though, it also happens to be a valid argument against said person. There is a difference between ad homs being mere vehicles that have no semblance or meaning and ad hominems that try to say that the person and the person alone regardless of his argument has no right to make it.

Don’t personally give a shit if a forum bans for ad homs, but if it bans for valid argument, and logic, then it is not a forum any more.

5

And where would that be?

6

Anywhere usually but I will make an exception for your long winded interpretation thread where you clearly do not have the education to attack science or anyone who has any knowledge of it because clearly a few semesters spent in physics little prepared you for either the maths or the actual physics that is this subject.

See that’s an ad hom, it’s also a fact, and it’s also then only an attack on his argument: James has no real education in physics, cannot answer any mathematical issue, and seems to want only to post pictures in lieu of attacking any maths or physics, and or using other peoples theories in exactly the same manner they do, but then claiming them as his own without having the ability to explain how somehow magically they are different.

Apologies some people need this shit spelled out in black and white, and since James has me on ignore no harm and no foul. Even if it was illogical which it is not, didn’t have to be James could of been anyone who wont even read this or anyone who likes to wax lyrical on subjects they have no real learning in without saying that they don’t and making certain caveats that they may not be right cause they are bad it this shit, but this was an opportunity far to flavourful to ignore.

If you haven’t spent time studying a subject enough even to do basic maths, or physics one can rightly say that your argument is invalid based on no more than you if you then try to tear down the whole of a subject based on your lack of understanding of it. Thank you James for being a willing stooge, and for not actually being able to read this. As always carry on. :slight_smile:

7

Ignorance makes others seem SO very wrong, doesn’t it.
:icon-rolleyes:

And I don’t attack Science.
I attack Scientism, the fanatical religiosity.
…such people as you, HHW (who wouldn’t know real Science if it shit in his mouth).

8

Hi Hobbes,

I have a thread that addresses that very issue here. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179291

Let me know if you think I missed the mark somehow!

9

It’s still an insult. You’re ignoring the value of “belonging”.

Eton College is an organization the chancellor belongs to. It reflects his identity.

The same goes for calling someone’s ideas “stupid” or whathaveyou. Ideas belong to their makers and reflect who they are.

Heck, calling an idea anything is a personal attack unless that calling is justified.

Namecalling forces the maker to assume the risk of unreliable judgment.

10

On the contrary, I am very familiar with the style of “ad homs” around here, but familiarity with a falsehood does not make the false hood correct.
It’s still wrong.

11

I’m new here, and was not ‘taking on’ moderation as such, as I have not had any encounters with moderators yet.
But I’m not new to Internet philosophising and have to say that moderation generally is completely shitty. Give a person a little bit of power and they abuse it. Most moderation I have come across seems to attack views that the moderator does not share.

Actually the reason I posted this was due to the miss use of the phrase on another thread here. One that I think you are contributing to also.
As for semantic arguments. They are the life blood of good philosophy. If you are clumsy and imprecise in your speech then you might as well be shouting at a wall.

As for being in the kiddies pool. I have been a teacher for many years, and know that teaching the correct use of words is best early as possible. The children with their armbands will not graduate to the deep end until they know how to speak proper init?

12

You just don’t get it do you? No that is not an ad homimen, it is just an insult. If I said your understanding of ad hominem was due the the fact that you smelled of elderberries, THEN it would be a fallacy - an ad hominem.
It is more of an ad hom if it were actually true that your parents smelled of elderberries. But in this case I have no idea why you are calling this an ad him. Maybe it is because of your macho avatar which makes you confrontational?
Did not you bother to read what I wrote?

Actually it is more of a shot in the dark. I doubt whether in almost every thread that you are qualified to make that statement, as you cannot know the people with whom you are arguing enough to make that statement. You are most likely making a fallacy too.

Now look closely - I have just made a statement that looks like an ad hominem but is really about evidence. I have attacked you about your knowledge, but it is a viable proposition about evidence. I’m not attacking you because you are you.

Sorry, but there are biologists in the world that have rejected evolution in favour of a god based idea. You have to deal with what they have in the way of an argument. As such it is not a valid ad hominem. Evolution has to stand or fall on its own merits. I’ve only done a little college science, and most of my time as been in archaeology, history and philosophy. I accept evolution but disagree with the religious use of it exhibited by people like Steve Pinker. I have excellent philosophical grounds for saying so, and reject people who say I am not qualified to make such statements because I do not have a Masters in Biology.
In the same way, your ideas about god and evolution ought not to be dismissed because the Pope (a person far more qualified in god and religion that you) says you are wrong.
To use a Bishop’s or a Priest’s authority or qualification to say that you are wrong would be an ad hominem in the same way you are suggesting the converse.
Do you see how this works?
The argument has to rest on the facts of the case and not a personal reflection on what the other might know or might not know.

I’m not interested in what the Forum says in its rules. I simply started this thread to demonstrate a common fallacy - that had appeared on another thread.

13

Yes, not bad.
A couple of things though.

“You are a moron, therefore Hume believed in God.”
This is a bit if an odd construction as an example of an ad hominem. I think it would be more clear if you said; “You think that Hume believed in god is false, because you are a moron”. OR “You are wrong to think that Hume believed in god, because you do not have a degree in philosophy.”

The other thing is that although Fallacies might seem convincing they are not “good arguments”. They can be used in support of a good argument, but they should not be used to validate such a thing unless you think faith moves mountains.
The Global warming thing is a case in point. Whether of not scientists think it is true or not does not change the temperature of the earth. The fallacy from authority, or argumentum verecundiam is the converse of the ad hominem. Both are fallacies.

14

The point is that an ad hominem might be an insult, but an insult is not necessarily an ad hominem.

If I say that the The Fiscal policy is wrong BECAUSE the chancellor does not have a degree in economics. (Let’s say its true)
Then this IS an ad hominem fallacy, because the fiscal policy’s validity does not rely on his qualification, and it is NOT an insult.
That is the whole point.

This has nothing to do with calling a person ‘stupid’. If you call his ideas stupid then that is not a direct insult but an indirect one.
Neither is an ad hominem, unless you are saying that the idea is stupid BECAUSE the person is stupid.
I’m sure you will understand it if you read my post again more carefully.

15

First, you ignored the matter of “belonging”. Even now, your fiscal policy argument is still insulting because you’re saying someone’s wrong from a lack of belonging to economic study. Likewise, calling someone’s ideas stupid is insulting because it ignores how the idea belongs to the person.

Second, you only addressed the second point I made, and not even entirely. Again, namecalling forces someone to assume the risk of unreliable judgment. To be clear, you can call someone’s idea “stupid” IF you prove it because it’s accurate, PREFERABLY before you call it that such that you don’t force someone to assume the risk of something being true just because you said so.

16
17

Right. When belonging is ignored, someone’s being insensitive. Literally, someone is failing to sense how someone/something belongs.

Likewise, someone is showing contempt for belonging as if someone/something deserves ridicule for a label rather than the essence underneath.

18

[size=120]Basic premises of retard defensiveness.

1- The thinker is other than the thought.
Ergo, the Christian is pathetic, and dumb, and sinful, and cruel, but Christianity is perfect, and benevolent, and well-meaning, and loving.
Using the same logic:
The communist is bad, but Communism is good.
Nazis are evil, but Nazism is benevolent.

2- Appearance is other than essence.
Ergo what is perceived might even be the opposite of what is.
Following that logic…empiricism is all a farce…there are no species.
“You can’t judge a book by its cover”, because it is a human artifice, which may purposefully be made to mislead…but this is used as an argument against appearances, against sensuality; mostly selectively.
Beauty is skin deep, but we cannot stop ourselves form being attracted to symmetry - of mind (intelligence) and body (beauty)…Color is irrelevant, but form, taste, sound, texture is relevant…Races do not exist, but speciation is real. It must occur spontaneously, magically…Civility is a pretense, most often faked, yet we respect and he value honesty…Beauty is on the “inside”, and all deserve love, but ask a female to live-up to these pretty words by giving a bum a blowjob, and making his miserable life momentarily pleasant. You see, appearances only do not matter when we wish to appear, as what we are not, and discrimination is evil only when it does not affect our choices and natural inclinations…

3- Degrading the idea, is good, degrading the idea’s supporter, is evil.
A addendum to #1.
Ergo, the thought is not the thinker…It is not a coward and a moron who can believe in stupid things, but a stupidity may even be held as true by a genius.
Conclusion, from a mind that accepts absurdities, and defends them with a straight face, you can expect a good citizen, offering lucid democratic judgments.
The idea, though always hypothetically perfect, is to be assaulted vehemently; the idea and ideal holder, on the other hand, although respo0sible for not living up to the idea’s, the dogma’s perfection, is never to be assaulted or degraded.
It’s not that a particular idea(l) creates a particular kind of mind, but the idea is independent of the mind that is seduced by it.

4- Honesty is to be commended, unless it hurts someone, or degrades them.
Ergo, what you speak honestly about can only be animal, inanimate objects, abstractions.
This relates to #3.
But, following Modern ethical logic, this restriction should be extended to animals as well.
Therefor, you cannot speak in a manner which may present any living organism in a way which may be unflattering…or that may hurt its feelings.

The underlying message here is one of Karmic retaliation. Why speak honestly, when this may get you into trouble; might get you ostracized, from a group you have to belong to? Only an ill madman would do so.
It is best to pretend, to lie, to be silent, if you cannot do the last. It is best to go along, so as to get along.
The basis of Modern mediocrity: shelter weakness, allow it the respect and the benefit of doubt, and help it flourish.

5- Something comes out of Nothing.
Ergo, not only is a God a plausible explanation as to how existence just popped out of nothingness, but the Big Bang is a logical secular assertion…just as the God-particle is…or the search for the singularity, or the absolute state.
A logical extension of this is this notion that gender just appears out of nothing…man inventing it from nil.
Same goes for race…or any category which is guilty of #4.
Therefore, cultures, civilizations, are not extensions of genetic lines, populations, emerging within particular environmental conditions and experiencing particular historical events, then spreading in the form of mimetic code, but they are fabrications out of the nil; evil constructs based no nothing but human malevolence, particularly the white male type.
From this we get the notion of the ‘primordial sin’, man being a fallen angel…the secular version being Roseau’s 'noble savage.
It is men, and these fabrications, that direct man away form his kindness, loving benevolence, sense of justice and fair play, and sharing.

[/size]

19

Er no James is an Engineer which I use loosely since he only has college degrees in it and is not in the field, as he has explained many times; has never studied maths or physics in depth, but seems to think he is well qualified to say that the whole field of physics is wrong at length and when challenged simply put you on ignore for all sorts of imagined slights (that are not actually real since he uses all the sorts of reasons you are on ignore himself{ hurling out constant I am right better educated and more wonderful shit in an endless stream of trolling. He is hence a hypocrite as he will accuse you of things he does not have any argument for and you for things so that he only has to talk to himself and whatever other crazy person who is probably just an alt account he wants to wax lyrical too. I did not use that example because I had no idea of James erudtion I made it precisely because James is about as good at college level maths and physics as I am at flying.

No offence but James is a running joke he has had every argument he has ever made exposed to valid criticism and lost every argument by just ignoring it and ploughing on regardless, he is then little more than a troll, wading on and on through the truth and accruing more and more ignored people on his list as time goes by, because he simply unwilling to learn the subject in the depth it requires to challenge anyone. He’'d put Carleas the owner of this site on ignore if he could, and he showed every single thing he said up as utter nonsense lacking no valid mathematical reasoning and not being anything to do with relativity at all.

James is a troll don’t get me wrong he is little else, but it will take a long time before anyone realises it. Seen everything he does on every branch of the forum science related there so many times that it would be amazing that he was not.

James is a waste of space troll, that we hope will eventually get bored at some point. Entertaining but not in the same way people who are different usually are. He’s just a vanilla troll who has no ability to be anything else any more, and marches on.

I did not use him as an example because I was not aware of his skill in science. I have been here for far longer than he has, and seen him do nothing but pollute science over and over again with such nonsense that it beggars belief. He’s a skater troll on thin ice the whole time, whilst I don’t’ want to see anyone permanently banned I do want to let people know that nothing he says does or even implies in the field of physics is even remotely worth listening to - ever. And never will be. My advice just don’t bother even listening to him about physics, it’s all just a lie.

I’d take everything he says with a pinch of salt if it has anything whatsoever to do with science, the rest well I wouldn’t know, take that as honest, he doesn’t get people banned for arguing coherently and sincerely about that.

20

Now does that not clearly say why ad hominem is not an insult, if it is merely true? The only person who could be insulted is one that should not for shame claim he is. He can’t see this anyway (on ignore) but you get my point. :slight_smile: