Kent Hovind vs. Aron Ra

[blastula]

Forget it, Jason. It's Liontown.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, Lion, it is a fact that an ad hominem in a debate is a fallacy.

However, your identification of ad hom is not correct, so your claim that people are using ad hom's, then denying the fact, is in error. Not all abuse is an ad hominem. Even abuse spat during a debate is not necessarily ad hom.

So, if you cannot find an ad hominem with both hands and a flashlight, that is not a reason for anyone to tolerate your dumbshit attempts to heap abuse upon innocent atheists, who simply know the difference.

 

[Lion IRC]

Angry Atheist Defends Debating Technique

 

[Lion IRC]

According to the atheist rules of debate it's not an ad hominem;
- if everyone knows it's true
- if it makes no difference to the inevitable outcome of the debate
- if the other person "started it"
- because only sticks and stones can break your bones
- because filthy scumbag Christofascist liar is meant as a compliment

To pacify Keith&Co I will add another one to the list.

It's not an ad hominem because everybody else does it

The other day I hit my thumb with a hammer and I swore at it.
#&@%!! hammer!

So glad to have 'splainers here to remind me that not every derogatory statement is an attempt to persuade.

 

[Keith&Co.]

'Pacify' is the wrong word, you twat-waffle.

'Tickle,' maybe. It tickles me that you double down on your ignorance and pretend you are telling us off, when all you are doing is showing your ass.

Ad hominem has a specific meaning, one that seems WIDELY misunderstood by online religiots, and you should probably spend more time understanding the term than trying to lecture people on their absolute failure to actually indulge in the practice.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's not an ad hominem because everybody else does it

No. Ad hominem is a very specific form of name calling, and not all name calling qualifies. Only some name calling is ad hominem. Most name calling isn't.

Are you familiar with Venn diagrams?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's not an ad hominem because everybody else does it

No. Ad hominem is a very specific form of name calling, and not all name calling qualifies. Only some name calling is ad hominem. Most name calling isn't.

Are you familiar with Venn diagrams?

You know, it's not even name-calling.

If I say 'You're a KJV-Onlyist, therefore you're wrong about evolution,' that's ad hom.
Or saying someone's wrong because they do or do not have a particular religious belief, or they're left-handed, or they've never smoked weed, or they're a virgin... It's attacking the person INSTEAD OF their argument.

Attacking the person for the sake of attacking the person is just rude. Not an ad hominem.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well obviously it's a very specific form of name-calling.
Atheist calls their debate interlocutor a moron and it's OK because they don't intend to influence the audience's estimation of Kent Hovind.
It takes a very special skill to personally abuse your debating opponent and ensure that everyone knows why you're doing that. You gotta scrupulously avoid using the word "therefore" immediately after the two dozen insults you threw into the debate.

"...belongs to a church that's full of pedophiles"
"...a misogynist who supports rape"
"...homeschool valedictorian"
"...Dunning Kruger blah blah blah"

"...OK, now back to the grown ups table so we can get on with our intellectual and civil exchange of ideas, according to the enlightenment values of reason and logic"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or, you just scrupulously avoid making an actual ad hominem fallacy, then you get to point and laugh at the creationists who accuse you of making an ad hominem attack, because all they're doing is flaunting their ignorance in futile outrage.

 

[Gun Nut]

Well obviously it's a very specific form of name-calling.
Atheist calls their debate interlocutor a moron and it's OK because they don't intend to influence the audience's estimation of Kent Hovind.
It takes a very special skill to personally abuse your debating opponent and ensure that everyone knows why you're doing that. You gotta scrupulously avoid using the word "therefore" immediately after the two dozen insults you threw into the debate.

"...belongs to a church that's full of pedophiles"
"...a misogynist who supports rape"
"...homeschool valedictorian"
"...Dunning Kruger blah blah blah"

"...OK, now back to the grown ups table so we can get on with our intellectual and civil exchange of ideas, according to the enlightenment values of reason and logic"

It seems yo may be confusing ad hom with "poisoning the well". You can poison the well WITH an ad hom, but they are not the same thing... and you can poison the well with other than ad homs (like in your examples - "he's a liar, now let's start" - that's poisoning, not ad hom)

 

[Lion IRC]

Well obviously it's a very specific form of name-calling.
Atheist calls their debate interlocutor a moron and it's OK because they don't intend to influence the audience's estimation of Kent Hovind.
It takes a very special skill to personally abuse your debating opponent and ensure that everyone knows why you're doing that. You gotta scrupulously avoid using the word "therefore" immediately after the two dozen insults you threw into the debate.

"...belongs to a church that's full of pedophiles"
"...a misogynist who supports rape"
"...homeschool valedictorian"
"...Dunning Kruger blah blah blah"

"...OK, now back to the grown ups table so we can get on with our intellectual and civil exchange of ideas, according to the enlightenment values of reason and logic"

It seems yo may be confusing ad hom with "poisoning the well". You can poison the well WITH an ad hom, but they are not the same thing... and you can poison the well with other than ad homs (like in your examples - "he's a liar, now let's start" - that's poisoning, not ad hom)

Nope.
Atheists don't need to poison any well. They have evidence and reason.

No, what they are doing is just casually passing time spitting out random derogatory stuff about their opponent for shits and giggles while they wait for the debate to actually start. No way are they attempting to influence the audience.

 

[Lion IRC]

Or, you just scrupulously avoid making an actual ad hominem fallacy, then you get to point and laugh at the creationists who accuse you of making an ad hominem attack, because all they're doing is flaunting their ignorance in futile outrage.

Yeah, yeah.
I get it already OK!!!
You point and laugh at your opponent in the course of making your argument about how THEY don't understand ad homs.

And I get it that you have mastered the art of scrupulously avoiding the use of the word "therefore" because (according to team atheism) all abusive ad hominems always and only ever take the form of a strict syllogism.

Thus...
You're a moron
Morons don't know nothin about nuthin
Therefore what you just said you dipshit moron (and everything you are about to say)
is a moronic load of crap

...can be sanitised into acceptable enlightened discourse so long as we delete the word "therefore"

 

[Keith&Co.]

And I get it that you have mastered the art of scrupulously avoiding the use of the word "therefore" because (according to team atheism) all abusive ad hominems always and only ever take the form of a strict syllogism.

No, you don't get it.
It's not 'according to team atheism,' it's the definition of ad hominem.
Or in your case, ALMOST the definition.

So close.

And yet, so angrily wrong.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Or, you just scrupulously avoid making an actual ad hominem fallacy, then you get to point and laugh at the creationists who accuse you of making an ad hominem attack, because all they're doing is flaunting their ignorance in futile outrage.

Yeah, yeah.
I get it already OK!!!

This is really amusing, because it's clear you don't get it, but think you do. So typical of you, and creationists in general.

An ad hominen is an actual logical fallacy. An insult is not necessarily a logical fallacy. The fact that you really can't even grasp such a simple concept is quite amusing. Carry on.

 

[Learner]

Yeah, yeah.
I get it already OK!!!

This is really amusing, because it's clear you don't get it, but think you do. So typical of you, and creationists in general.


The fact that you really can't even grasp such a simple concept is quite amusing. Carry on.

An ad hominen is an actual logical fallacy. An insult is not necessarily a logical fallacy.

I think (generally as a theist) I agree with, "an insult is not neccessarily a logical fallacy" per se, but how one describes anothers character (not so unlike the underlined I suppose) could be seen as an ad hominen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think (generally as a theist)

Are you saying that theists have a different dictionary?

I agree with, "an insult is not neccessarily a logical fallacy" per se, but how one describes anothers character (not so unlike the underlined above) could be.

Can you give an example of a logical fallacy in character assassination, and identify the logical fallacy it is?

Actually, more to the point, can you demonstrate that you understand exactly what an ad hominem attack IS and/or IS NOT, before attempting to come to Lion's assistance?

 

[Learner]

Was in reply to ... "creationists in general" opinionated quote.

Can you give an example of a logical fallacy in character assassination, and identify the logical fallacy it is?

Is it true that Lion is of those things mentioned ? If not then ....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Was in reply to ... creationists in general quote.

Well, the term 'ad hominem' has A MEANING, so saying you agree WITH THE MEANING should be a matter of knowledge, not part of whether or not you're a theist.

Can you give an example of a logical fallacy in character assassination, and identify the logical fallacy it is?

Is it true that Lion is of those things mentioned ? If not then ....

So, that's a no.

 

[Learner]

Well, the term 'ad hominem' has A MEANING, so saying you agree WITH THE MEANING should be a matter of knowledge, not part of whether or not you're a theist.

My bad. A poor attempt, trying a bit of tongue-in-cheek with the "creationists in general" bit.

So, that's a no.

Its not a fact. ( a yes.)

The fact that you really can't even grasp such a simple concept is quite amusing. Carry on.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Its not a fact. ( a yes.)

The fact that you really can't even grasp such a simple concept is quite amusing. Carry on.

I'm not following you here.
Unless you think that stating something that is not true is a logical fallacy?

Like, 'the Earth is flat.' Do you think that is a fallacy?