No there wasn't this is new - to an all new personal attack level it used to resort in a timeout, or banning. DD
Getting pretty toned, lost 15lbs of fat in the past 5-6 weeks, gained about 7lbs of muscle. My goal is an 8-pack. Thank you, @Jeff, for this opportunity.
agreed, we are all guilty, myself included. We're all rockets fans at the end of the day, and more importantly.. people.
Not everyone is a rockets fan The Lin only fans and the people who never post on the GARM gets their fandom revoked
Since I'm still stuck in hurry up and wait this afternoon and going to comment on an interesting exchange that I had with another poster. Apparently this poster found it disappointing that I actually presented a counter narrative to his argument and then made a pun about his "pet" issue that he seemed to feel was a personal attack. I find it funny that I've frequently been categorized as someone who just wants to get along with everyone and just has some milquetoast wishy washy positions. The mistake is thinking refraining from engaging in childish name calling or throwing out unfounded personal attacks as meaning having little passion or strength in one's positions. It's unfortunately a symptom of our culture that we mistake anger for conviction and frequently view the loudest voice as being the most cogent. As some posters even those who I tend to agree with a fair amount politically have noticed I'm not above challenging them and just because I'm not calling people "Dumbass" and "moron" doesn't mean I'm just here to get along. The name of this subforum is "Debate and Discuss" that does mean that you should expect to have your views challenged every now and then.
It wasn't me breh! I disagree that people's views change, especially if they have the woke mind virus, that eats your braincells and turns you into zombie.
Seeing as how Judoka has moved the discussion to this thread, I'll respond here. Douglas Walton distinguishes between three types of ad hominem arguments: abusive, circumstantial, and attacks on impartiality. Calling someone a "dumbass moron" might be an example of an abusive ad hominem. What Judoka engaged in was not an abusive ad hominem. Judoka's response to me in the Bidenomics thread was an example of the third kind of logical fallacy, an attack on my impartiality: This response does not make Judoka a dumbass moron, as you (facetiously) put it. His response to me is simply an irrelevant logical fallacy akin to poisoning the well. Here's a brief excerpt from Walton to illustrate the point: I simply drew attention to the fallacious aspect of Judoka's response. Now, in hindsight I believe Judoka may have thought I was accusing him of committing an ad hominem fallacy of the first kind--the "abusive ad hominem"--in which case that would simply be an incorrect inference on his part. I was, however, indeed drawing attention to his fallacious use of an ad hominem response of the third kind, an ad hominem aimed toward my partiality ("This seems more like you're upset about your 'pet' issue being regulated . . . "). Hope this clears up any confusion you might have about my response to Judoka. I in no way am suggesting he is a "dumbass moron." Of course, your mileage may vary, if that's how you really feel about him, have at it! Instead, I was simply (a) drawing attention to the illogic of his response, and (b) expressing my personal disappointment in him for poisoning the well against my arguments in the Bidenomics thread: about what I see as excessive CDC regulation in both the narrow context of dog importation restrictions as well as in the broader context of CDC regulations generally.
I didn’t name you as I was using your post as jumping off point to a general point but other posters can read that thread and decide for themselves. As noted in the thread while yes in the strictest sense it was an ad hominem it was actually on topic to what was being discussed.
no, not really on topic. On topic would have been a response to my actual argument such suggesting that indeed 8-week old puppies imported from Canada or Europe are in fact a rabies threat. Your response did nothing of the kind. An ad hominem does not necessarily always have to be an "ad hominem argument." Also, ad hominems are NOT always fallacious; sometimes they are relevant. As ARGUMENTS, ad hominems are normally thought of as those statements/arguments in which the (ad hominem) information about a person is used to discredit that person's ideas. An ad hominem statement such as "Os trigonum is a retired professor" might simply be an empirical statement of fact, and therefore not an argument, but still ad hominem. Alternatively, it might be used as a coded signifier for "Os trigonum is a pointy-headed academic who lives in the ivory tower and has no real-world experience. We can safely discount or even ignore what he has to say about real-world issues." In which case it is both an argument and a fallacious ad hominem. I'll share another example I used for 30 years with my students to illustrate. Happily it is also an architect-friendly example. Let's say a guy named Jones is a house framer who shares a job site with a bunch of bickering stone masons. The stone masons are constantly arguing day in and day out about the best way to mix cement, or the best way to lay cinder block, or the best way to build a chimney. One day, Jones is so tired of listening to the masons' seemingly endless disputes about foundations that he goes over to offer some friendly advice about pouring a concrete slab. In response to Jones's perceived meddling, however, one of the more outspoken stone masons says: "Don't listen to Jones. Jones is just a carpenter." In this case, the ad hominem ("to the man," or "re: Jones") might be ENTIRELY relevant to the subject (building construction) at hand. It may be empirically correct that Jones as a mere carpenter knows absolutely nothing about pouring cement--in which case the ad hominem is non-fallacious and genuinely relevant. And insofar as the statement is aimed at Jones, it suggests to Jones that he should "stay in his lane." On the other hand, perhaps Jones is a jack-of-all-trades whose father poured cement for 50 years in a family-own cement business. Jones grew up helping his father. So perhaps unknown to the bickering masons, Jones really DOES know something about cement and concrete. He just prefers carpentry and decided not to follow in his father's footsteps with the cement business. The empirical fact remains that Jones really does know about cement and concrete. In this latter case, the mason's accusation of credibility is wholly and entirely unjustified and fallacious. The masons might be well-advised to listen to Jones and take what he says seriously. What constitutes "on topic" is therefore debatable but also contextual. And it is that context that determines whether the a statement is relevant or fallacious.
