Definition of a word
-
- Posts: 8586
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: Definition of a word
You'll take my fun away if I did that.
And on a point of fact, I had no idea who made the decision.
And on a point of fact, I had no idea who made the decision.
- savvypaul
- Posts: 8679
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:14 pm
- Location: Durham
- Has thanked: 1664 times
- Been thanked: 3002 times
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 8586
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
- savvypaul
- Posts: 8679
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:14 pm
- Location: Durham
- Has thanked: 1664 times
- Been thanked: 3002 times
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Definition of a word
No it wouldn’t, it would just be insulting. It would be ad hominem if I suggested that your argument was incorrect because you were a fat arsehole.It is a fact that I am overweight and occasionally obnoxious, but if you call me a fat arsehole on a thread where I am not the topic then it would still be ad hom
-
- Posts: 8586
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: Definition of a word
Ffs, I said if it was relevant.
There are plenty of topics he could initiate that would make him being obese a relevant fact.
Similarly the intellect of the poster was relevant.
There are plenty of topics he could initiate that would make him being obese a relevant fact.
Similarly the intellect of the poster was relevant.
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 16 times
- Lindsayt
- Posts: 4232
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
- Has thanked: 1108 times
- Been thanked: 701 times
Re: Definition of a word
Arsehole's are not known for holding valid points of view. Therefore, by clear implication, calling someone an arsehole when they are not the subject of a thread is ad hominem.Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:56 pmNo it wouldn’t, it would just be insulting. It would be ad hominem if I suggested that your argument was incorrect because you were a fat arsehole.It is a fact that I am overweight and occasionally obnoxious, but if you call me a fat arsehole on a thread where I am not the topic then it would still be ad hom
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Definition of a word
That makes no sense to me. Sorry. I quote from Wiki on the subject.
It should also be noted that an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy.
- Lindsayt
- Posts: 4232
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
- Has thanked: 1108 times
- Been thanked: 701 times
Re: Definition of a word
First paragraph of the wiki entry says:
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
Calling someone a fat arsehole in the context of a discussion on hi-fi is avoiding genuine discussion as it is attacking an attribute of the person making the argument. It is certainly not attacking the substance of the argument to call someone a fat arsehole during a discussion on hi-fi.
If someone were on a fitness forum and was going on about a particular diet and exercise regime that they used, then it may not be ad hominem to call them fat if they were somewhat overweight.
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
Calling someone a fat arsehole in the context of a discussion on hi-fi is avoiding genuine discussion as it is attacking an attribute of the person making the argument. It is certainly not attacking the substance of the argument to call someone a fat arsehole during a discussion on hi-fi.
If someone were on a fitness forum and was going on about a particular diet and exercise regime that they used, then it may not be ad hominem to call them fat if they were somewhat overweight.