What is an ad hominem?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_marg

Post by _marg »

GoodK wrote: I walked into your trap???!

As Marg so graciously pointed out, all you have done is demonstrate that you are petty minded and can't follow along, be civil in internet discussion boards, behave like a fair moderator, or grasp the concept of ad hominem. The person you were supposedly defending, Jersey Girl, admitted to using ad homs... thus spoiling your little "trap" and contradicting the lousy blow-hard post you've made, with the intent of trying to stir the pot.

You had nothing constructive to add nor have I ever seen you have something constructive to add, and now you are feverishly (and shamelessly) trying to save face. It's a sad sight to see... hows that foot taste?

Ouch.

PS. Apology accepted.

The only mod request I will make is that you stay down in the lower kingdoms, where you OBVIOUSLY belong.


S.H's words speak for the sort of person she is. She uses her personal agenda and grievances as justification to attack and harass, and knowing she can't be banned she doesn't care about true facts or whether she knows what she is talking about.

She was one example why I thought no thread should be moved from Celestial to Terrestial because she is the type of person who abuses the system of free speech. She would look upon the moving of the thread as an opportunity to dish out unjustified ad homs, the very problem in the first place as to why the thread got moved.

As it turns out she's also an excellent example of why moderation isn't going to be the answer in the Celestial if it's not done properly. She's not capable of being a moderator. She has a personal agenda, and is not able to be fair and objective. I could say more about what she lacks as far as being an effective and good moderator, but I'll leave it at that.

And I'm not planning to contact Shades. It's his board he can run it as he wishes. But I'm certainly not going to invest time into a thread, such as the Evidence for Jesus which would require a good deal of research, only to have it moved or to end up engaging with individuals who resort to fallacious intellectually dishonest posts such as ad homs. It is not worth the time engaging with those types of individuals who lack the integrity to argue honestly. I'm not saying the current ones on there in the last week, or since it got moved are doing that, but at this point there is no policy to stop such an individual. And as we can see there is no policy to stop threads set up in the Celestial for the purpose of harrassment and personal attack.
_Imwashingmypirate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:45 pm

Post by _Imwashingmypirate »

Ad hom literally means 'to the person', when used on these board it generally means as personal attack or arguing against a person in order to inferiorate them. Like Argumentum Ad Hominem. (SP?)

That's what I think anyway.
Just punched myself on the face...
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

Imwashingmypirate wrote:Ad hom literally means 'to the person', when used on these board it generally means as personal attack or arguing against a person in order to inferiorate them. Like Argumentum Ad Hominem. (SP?)

That's what I think anyway.


This wasn't a real question, Pirate. S.H already admitted it was just a "trap"
_Imwashingmypirate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:45 pm

Post by _Imwashingmypirate »

Oh... Well, I couldn't be bothered reading crap, so I just read the first few posts. Skim reading is good. I'm a div then hehe, Cool.
Just punched myself on the face...
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

Imwashingmypirate wrote: reading crap.


Great summary of this entire thread!

Total crap! Uh oh, that isn't an ad hominem is it ?
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

GoodK wrote:
Imwashingmypirate wrote: reading crap.


Great summary of this entire thread!

Total crap! Uh oh, that isn't an ad hominem is it ?


Since it's not referring to a person...no.

;)
_Imwashingmypirate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:45 pm

Post by _Imwashingmypirate »

I agree Liz. As I said, ad hom literally means, to the person.

It appears people are arguing about arguing and that seems a little strange.
Just punched myself on the face...
_marg

Post by _marg »

liz3564 wrote:
GoodK wrote:
Imwashingmypirate wrote: reading crap.


Great summary of this entire thread!

Total crap! Uh oh, that isn't an ad hominem is it ?


Since it's not referring to a person...no.

;)


Actually Liz the thread is written by people, and Pirate's comment is referring to how people have discussed this topic. It is ad hominal. It is a dismissal and negative remark on what people have argued and how they have argued.
_BishopRic
_Emeritus
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:59 pm

Post by _BishopRic »

My thoughts about this are that it is very common, and very tempting, when discussing Mormonism to go ad hom. As a critic, I see apologists ad homming (word?) all the time with statements like "well, he was ex'd, so he can't be trusted." Or, "he is gay, so why should I believe him?" To a degree, it seems it is part of the debate for Mormons (since I think the evidence against core claims is so huge), and in order to survive the "attack," they need to go to ad hom to emotionally survive. In other words, the process I see commonly when evidence is presented is "well, he is an ex-Mormon, so he has lost the spirit and has an axe to grind..."

I think the most common method is to call us "anti-Mormons." I know there have been endless arguments about this, but from my perspective, if that sort of label is used, it is discrediting the source to the readers.

I will admit I am guilty of the opposite scenario, and must check myself when discussing issues. I have a tendency to consider active Mormons naïve, defensive, and in denial about their true history. It takes work for me to address the issue only without keeping at the forefront who I am addressing. I'll try to be better at that.

Really.
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

BishopRic wrote:My thoughts about this are that it is very common, and very tempting, when discussing Mormonism to go ad hom. As a critic, I see apologists ad homming (word?) all the time with statements like "well, he was ex'd, so he can't be trusted." Or, "he is gay, so why should I believe him?" To a degree, it seems it is part of the debate for Mormons (since I think the evidence against core claims is so huge), and in order to survive the "attack," they need to go to ad hom to emotionally survive. In other words, the process I see commonly when evidence is presented is "well, he is an ex-Mormon, so he has lost the spirit and has an axe to grind..."

I think the most common method is to call us "anti-Mormons." I know there have been endless arguments about this, but from my perspective, if that sort of label is used, it is discrediting the source to the readers.

I will admit I am guilty of the opposite scenario, and must check myself when discussing issues. I have a tendency to consider active Mormons naïve, defensive, and in denial about their true history. It takes work for me to address the issue only without keeping at the forefront who I am addressing. I'll try to be better at that.

Really.


Well said. You've inspired me to try to be better at that as well.

Thank you.
Post Reply