Audiophile discussion, articles, bake-offs, Doc-Mods, music. NVA reviews, loan scheme, orders & support. Phono stages, amplifiers, semi-omni speakers, cables, headphone amps, digital, vinyl.
https://www.hifisubjectivist.org/
You're the lawyer so I'd hope you'd know the difference but imho the former is still open to interpretation whereas the latter (generally speaking and you know full well what I mean) isn't.
How would you know whether someone was 'technically' a moron without testing their IQ?Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:23 am The point is calling someone a moron if true can not be ad adhomien. (*if the term is used in the psychological sense)
Truth necessarily trumps ad hom
You are a moron is exactly the same as you are male.
You have access to this person's IQ test results?Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:39 am It isn't it as very specific definition. (somebody with a iq below 85)
It usage may have been bastardise, but that deosnt alter the fact.
As for knowing in this instance I know.
It doesn't matter, as DQ saidjoe wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:24 amYou have access to this person's IQ test results?Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:39 am It isn't it as very specific definition. (somebody with a iq below 85)
It usage may have been bastardise, but that deosnt alter the fact.
As for knowing in this instance I know.
Well, its not exactly the same, but its functionally equivalent. But I disagree that a true statement can not be used as part of ad hominem.You are a moron is exactly the same as you are male.
Well, yes it does, in fact it's fundamental. If calling someone a 'moron' is not ad hominem if that person actually is, technically speaking, a moron (ie he or she has an IQ below a certain level), then you have to able to demonstrate that you know, for a fact, that their IQ is below that level. Otherwise the word 'moron' is just a catch-all term of abuse. The same goes for 'idiot', 'imbecile' and similar terms that have both a vulgar abuse meaning and a technical (albeit obsolescent) meaning.Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:24 amIt doesn't matter, as DQ saidjoe wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:24 amYou have access to this person's IQ test results?Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:39 am It isn't it as very specific definition. (somebody with a iq below 85)
It usage may have been bastardise, but that deosnt alter the fact.
As for knowing in this instance I know.
But only if the fact that they may or may not be a moron (or male) has any direct impact on the logical assertion that they are arguing. In the example I gave the assertion is 1+1=2, the sex of someone making that argument has no bearing on the mathematics, so suggesting that the assertion is wrong because they are male is not ad hominem, it is just a non argument. Now if you regard being male as disparaging, then the statement becomes a insult, but because it clearly has no bearing on the substance of the assertion it does not then become ad hominem it remains an insult.joe wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:38 amWell, yes it does, in fact it's fundamental. If calling someone a 'moron' is not ad hominem if that person actually is, technically speaking, a moron (ie he or she has an IQ below a certain level), then you have to able to demonstrate that you know, for a fact, that their IQ is below that level. Otherwise the word 'moron' is just a catch-all term of abuse. The same goes for 'idiot', 'imbecile' and similar terms that have both a vulgar abuse meaning and a technical (albeit obsolescent) meaning.
Well, that is just an assertion. It could be a insult, and it could be libel.