HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

As a lawyer, currently on the sick, but a lawyer none the less.

I'm careful with my words. Look up the meaning of moron.

I didn't think you could ad homien someone with a fact.

No word, in of itself, is ad hominem.

Context must be assessed.

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.

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...

If you did something that warranted being called obese, I would be hard pressed to see it as ad hom.

As with all factual statements the interlocutor would be silly to take offence and the readership imbecilic to perceive it.

Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 8:59 pm If you did something that warranted being called obese, I would be hard pressed to see it as ad hom.

It could if I were not the subject of the thread.

That would be incorrect interpratation

Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 9:07 pm That would be incorrect interpratation

In my judgement it could well be '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.'

I said if a comment warranted it.

You mistakenly decided to argue if it warranted it as the start of your argument.
.
If somebody says something you don't agree with. It can not be adhom to point out a fact, even if the personal fact in question is peripheral to the thread topic.

I assume you are referring to the thread regarding Richard's passing, so it will be useful to discuss the context.

I removed Shane's comment because I did consider that to be ad hominem.

I removed your follow up and Shane's response because, once I had removed Shane's original comment, they had no context.

Now if only you had said that in the beginning.

I can't argue with your decision.

You're right. In future, I shall get straight to the point.

Do the same for me and tell me directly that you wish to question a specific decision.

I (hopefully) won't go down too many more rabbit holes.