What is an ad hominem?

[_marg]

The post that you are replying to, marg, was directed at the OP.

Got it, I thought you were saying your post in the Celestial was not fall. ad hominal. Ok I'll change my post.

I guess I won't since you've made a copy in your post, it won't make any difference.

[_marg]

by the way, I'd like to make a comment here. I've never had a problem with an occasionally ad hom in any post. If someone does that, I might point it out but it's not much of a problem. One reason to point it out is to make the other person aware and that you wish them to stop. It's when it's excessive, it's when the whole focus is on attacking/harassing the person instead of making an argument or when in every post it is laced with an attack on a person which has little to do with the argument itself, that it is problematic, to an intellectually honest discussion.

[_Jersey Girl]

The post that you are replying to, marg, was directed at the OP.

Got it, I thought you were saying your post in the Celestial was not fall. ad hominal. Ok I'll change my post.

I guess I won't since you've made a copy in your post, it won't make any difference.

No need to change anything, marg. There is no question that my comments to GoodK can be viewed as ad hom. I wanted to state that upfront because I don't think I did so previously on this thread. I certainly didn't intend ad hom but ad hom they can sure be considered.

[_marg]

No need to change anything, marg. There is no question that my comments to GoodK can be viewed as ad hom. I wanted to state that upfront because I don't think I did so previously on this thread. I certainly didn't intend ad hom but ad hom they can sure be considered.

Ok, but there is a difference between fallacious ad homs versus ad homs and it is the fallacious ad homs which are problematic as opposed to the warranted and justified ad homs.

It's not always a clear cut line. But generally when the criticism has little relevancy to the logic of the topic, or the criticism is not warranted, that is no or little evidence has been established..then it's fallacious. It is arguing against the person as opposed to the argument. It is generally an argument made saying that one should ignore the other person not based on the logic of their argument but because of some personal criticism irrelevant to the argument.

[_marg]

I just realized Sam Harris did write that mod note. I thought it had been written anonymously and attached to GoodK's post. Is she even a mod?

Sam, for someone who posed the question and started this thread on what an ad hom is, it is apparent it wasn't your main interest as you had already decided where you were going with this in advance. It seems your intent was to attack GoodK, probably even myself, and anyone else who had pointed out ad homs in the "Evidence for Jesus" thread. So you were not sincere, nor intellectually honest. It is also apparent that you didn't read explanations carefully in this thread, and were wasting people's time.

[_Jersey Girl]

It is not an ad hominem to attack someone's sources. If your sources are BS, then your sources are BS, and it would behoove you to find sources that are not. I'm not splitting hairs with you two.

Who has abused your person on here? As a mod...I want to know.

Since my words are being bandied about on this thread, I feel compelled to straighten out this mess. Here is the quote in question:

"I can already tell from your posts that you rely on skeptic sites and have not engaged the material yourself. I've been engaging and engaged by skeptics for years and I know exactly what you're going to present to me before you present it.

The question here is not whether or not I "know this stuff" the question is whether or not you are willing to support your regurgitations of the skeptic material that is the basis for your unsupported assertions."

Now, let me post it again and show you where the attack on the person/ ad hom is by bolding it:

"I can already tell from your posts that you rely on skeptic sites and have not engaged the material yourself. I've been engaging and engaged by skeptics for years and I know exactly what you're going to present to me before you present it.

The question here is not whether or not I "know this stuff" the question is whether or not you are willing to support your regurgitations of the skeptic material that is the basis for your unsupported assertions."

I didn't attack his sources, per se, because in those exchanges, he didn't offer sources for his claims. You cannot say that I called BS on his sources when he didn't supply any in those exchanges.

What I did do, was attack his person by implying that he wasn't able to support his assertions. And I will say again, I didn't intend it as ad hom, though technically it is.

[_Jersey Girl]

Just for the record here, I want to say publicly that this thread is a good example of why I refuse to take mod action on a thread where I'm a participant because it tends to muddy the waters

[_GoodK]

What I did do, was attack his person by implying that he wasn't able to support his assertions.

Which has been demonstrated to be false, because I did provide a link early on. But this thread is pointless... I'd just like an apology from whomever is posting under the name Sam Harris.

Just for the record here, I want to say publicly that this thread is a good example of why I refuse to take mod action on a thread where I'm a participant because it tends to muddy the waters

I actually have to agree with you on this Jersey Girl. I see why you didn't want to take a mod action now.

[_Jersey Girl]

I actually have to agree with you on this Jersey Girl. I see why you didn't want to take a mod action now.

I established that policy from the day I became a mod, GoodK. The only circumstance in which I would take mod action on a thread where I'm a participant would be in the case of posting in real life information. In that case, I would:

1. Copy the information
2. Send it to Shades
3. Delete the information in a New York minute from public view

And let the chips fall where they may regarding any criticisms of what I did.

[_Sam Harris]

Ok....

I see that this has gotten out of hand AGAIN. It's actually quite amusing.

GoodK, if you feel that I've set out to attack you, my most sincere apologies. But calling someone personally illiterate is an adhominem. Attacking someone's sources is not an ad hominem. THAT was my whole point.

Another poster on this thread agreed with me, not Jersey Girl (I wish you all would stop trying to make it seem like she's such a troublemaker, she is not) that the term ad hom is being abused in this forum.

Like I said in an earlier post, Crockett whipped out the ad homs against GoodK when he went after her personally. In any case, saying you do not agree with someone's sources is not an attack.

If you want to get upset about that, so be it. But I personally didn't like seeing someone who kept crying "Ad hom" turn around and tell the person they were accusing that that person was illiterate. Why don't you apologize, GoodK?

This is one of the main reasons why I get sick of this board at times. And yes, I am a mod. Why don't you petition for my removal, since I'm not playing by your rules? This forum is apparently not going the way GoodK, JAK, and Marg think it should go....so changes need to be made. Make your suggestions. Feel free. :-)