You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: STEEM: The Disproportionate Power Balance with Downvotes
(1) Please provide an example of an ad hominem attack that is NOT an insult.
(2) Please provide an example of an insult that is NOT an ad hominem attack.
Equally an Ad hominem that isn't an insult when it is True
Wiki
Citation please.
Truth has no quality of Disrespect or Respect, which is what insults hinge on. If an ad hominem is True then it cannot be an insult, it can only be an observation.
So, if someone says, "I think you're a lying dog-faced pony-soldier", that's NOT an ad hominem attack in your opinion because it's "TRUE" (that person is presumably sincere)??
The key problem here is that character is QUALITATIVE (GNOSIS).
The other key problem here is that motives are QUALITATIVE (GNOSIS).
And you seem to be glossing-over the point that even your source specifies "in SOme instances" (probably when the question tautologically involves questions of "character" and or "motive", of course under those conditions "character" and or "motive" would necessarily be relevant). HOWever, "character" and "motive" are both beyond our epistemological limits (un-quantifiable, self-reported, implicit, subconscious).
And your bald assertion that an ad hominem attack is not fallacious if it's "true" is not supported by any of your quoted sources.
Why is that a problem?
Baloney
What 'attack'? It's a god damn Ad Hominem, a type of Argument, and not necessarily a type of Flawed or False Argument. Ergo, it's not Fallacious if it is true, as the last quote explains.
The key problem here is that character is QUALITATIVE
Because there is no way to QUANTIFY "character".
And without QUANTIFICATION there is no way to verify a claim's "TRUTH-VALUE".
Your quote "explains" no such thing.
It simply asserts that in SOME cases, presumably if the subject at hand is specifically about a person's history and or personal choices, data relevant to such an inquiry CANNOT be considered off-limits.
HOweVer, I can't imagine a case where a person's history and or personal choices would be a subject of scrutiny wholly divorced from any explicit or implicit attack or endorsement of their abilities and or ideas WHOLESALE.
A "positive" ad hominem is just as fallacious as a "negative" ad hominem.
You shouldn't believe someone just because they're a doctor.
You shouldn't disbelieve someone just because they're a commie.
It explains that an ad hominem isn't fallacious if the position the other has implicates their character/ motivations etc.
It's not about Positive or Negative or such value statements, it's about Correct or Incorrect reasoning, True or False argumentation.
I agree, claims should be examined by themselves but if the creed of the Doctor is to always obfuscate or lie/deceive then it would be difficult not to believe them, the same creed-o would dismiss the commie if that were the case.
Well that's encouraging.
The only "problem" being that you can never know "their character" or "motivations" etc, due to your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS.
And even the most morally repulsive, malevolent person can still make a perfectly valid logically sound statement.
Their moral repulsiveness and malevolence do not magically invalidate their logic.
It's not about their logic holding consistency, internally or otherwise, but about their Ability to characterize certain things that their very character will undoubtedly taint or cast doubt on. That's what I think you're being obtuse about, you think that it's a matter of pure Logic or Reasoning, but it's a matter of Precision, Accuracy, and above all else a matter of Ability to Judge Correctly, not just to judge Logically.
Nonsense. I don't need to "know" their character. I only need to Judge them based on what I know about them, however limited that may be, I don't need to know Everything to surmise their character, it might be more accurate but it can be done accurately without considering everything.
I admire your faith in sample-bias.
Please teach me to "Judge Correctly" without logic.