03-07-2004 00:29									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Whaleboy:

quote: It's like questioning the means by which a player joins a football team with a view to seeing which team is better. The only way to tell which team is better is to let them play!

But when critiqueing an artist, don't you also critique the idea or thing that inspired the work as well as the work itself? You critique a Picasso painting on its own grounds AND that which it attempted to represent... why did Picasso choose this idea/thing? was it a good one to choose? did he fulfill the idea's/thing's unconcealment or portrayal that is the work?

Picasso may be a hard example what with him being a cubist but take Da Vinci's Mona Lisa... not only do you judge the actual work itself but also the thing from which the work was derived. If Da Vinci chose to paint a woman from the start and not himself... if Da Vinci painted another woman with different characteristics... if Da Vinci chose to not portray the Mona Lisa with her grin... all these are pre-work things from which a different work could have been derived.

Those pre-work things are the emotions to the logical position that is the work. Why would a thourough art criticism include a question of "Why this work this way?" while intellectual debate does not?

	03-07-2004 00:49									#122
	Support Apolyton

are you debating the truth of an argument, or its beauty?

"his proof was correct, but inelegant. he could have used fewer steps"

"the lawyers case was sound, but i couldnt listen after he started shouting"

"He may be right, but i cant listen cause his very presence makes my blood boil"

all the above may be factually true, and may be worth saying. But theyre NOT arguments as to the truth of an argument (well except an argument about the aesthetic qualities of an argument)

	03-07-2004 00:52									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

pragmatist answer

folks who use ad hominems to judge truth, other than in the limited cases mentioned above, tend not to obtain the results they seek.


pseudo Hegelian answer - societies that fail to develop the distinction between ad hominems and valid arguments, fall behind other societies and end up on the dust heap of history.

	03-07-2004 01:38									#124
	Put an end to popups!

Actually I have learned a great deal from people I was tempted to (and may have) attacked personally. It is kind of like saying that the truth hurts. It is normal to be offended when a cherished logical position is refuted but the wise man gets over it and learns something. I see Speer's point but it is too easy to trash someone's argument because we think he is an evil whatever. If a racist is trying to devise a policy he still may have some important contribution to the discussion which will be missed if he is discarded out of hand. Heck, I even learned something from a liberal once...

	03-07-2004 01:49									#125
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

$10 says when Albert realizes he's been beat he says this is just a big troll .

	03-07-2004 02:20									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yeah aint it surprising how long this has lasted?

Mark:

the correctness of an arguement is analogous to the beauty of a work of art. I'm not discussing the beauty of the arguement but its equivalent.

	03-07-2004 02:59									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Nothing I ever read in the works of my avatar ever made me think he would think ad homimens would be worthwhile in a debate. Why debate anyone so lowly as to be the target of ad homimems?

	03-07-2004 03:11									#128
	Full PM-box? Change here!

GePap:

Nietzsche's (and Hume's) 'emotivism', as Whaleboy calls it, would, by extension, cause him to have no problem with ad hominems. Nietzsche's annoyance with the soulless reason of Kant and Schopenhaur and his emphasis on the spirit, the emotions, and the plurality of the soul can allow one to infer that he would argue roughly what i am argueing.

	03-07-2004 03:18									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Agathon: Bob has some plan to change the education system in a predominately spanish area. Bob is a racist and his education plan is an arguement derived from his racism.

Hitler wants motorways and people's cars.

Hitler is a racist.

Motorways and people's cars therefore are bad.

Napoleon wants a united europe.

Napoleon is French and a tyrant.

A united europe is bad.


Albert Speer wants cornbread.

Albert Speer misunderstood some philosophy.

Cornbread is mighty tasty, especially with a decent tomato sauce, or bean soup.

Shoot. Doesn't always work.

	03-07-2004 03:18									#130
	Put an end to popups!

I think that thinking is flawed- you spoke about the art of the debate, the joy of creating. A debate based on illogic is a bastard piece of art, a flawed and weak creation made from fear and weakness. The strong debater can crush his opponent with their wit and arguements, with their charisma and energy. If they need to sink down to personal and irrelevant attacks they are not up to their task- the attack out of their own weakness. They are to be pitied, not seen as an example.

	03-07-2004 03:34									#131
	Got spare money?

Molly Bloom:

there is one big difference between what i described and your examples. The racist's plan concerns the schooling in a mainly minority area so there is a relation and one could realistically infer that the racist's education policy is racially based. Hitler's racism had nothing to do with his building of the autobahn.

i refer to the analogy of art where the emotions are that idea or thing which the painter bases his creation on. the emotions are connected to the created.

GePap:

quote: A debate based on illogic is a bastard piece of art, a flawed and weak creation made from fear and weakness.

Why? Can we assume that our ideas are firstly instinctual; firstly emotional and our reason, our logic, is only the mental justification of our emotions... an attempt to make others be able to understand our emotions? Can this be assumed?

my entire arguement stems from this assumption. If one's ideas are just the mind's pondering over one's pre-disposed emotions, it follows that one's logic position is inter-connected to one's emotions. the two are mutually inclusive and essentially, the same thing.

therefore, finding fault in the logic is tantamount to finding fault in the emotions, right? so why would the inverse not be true? i find fault in your emotional pre-dispositions and defeat your logic position at the root.

	03-07-2004 03:49									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer GePap: Why? Can we assume that our ideas are firstly instinctual; firstly emotional and our reason, our logic, is only the mental justification of our emotions... an attempt to make others be able to understand our emotions? Can this be assumed?

There is a reason why nietzsche sees a need for the slave morality as he calls it- becuase it builds a depth of character, as man strives to enslave and battle himself. Nowhere does Nietzsche then advocate simply unleashed emotions- destruction in the cause of new creation is different from simple destruction.

quote: my entire arguement stems from this assumption. If one's ideas are just the mind's pondering over one's pre-disposed emotions, it follows that one's logic position is inter-connected to one's emotions. the two are mutually inclusive and essentially, the same thing.

You forget to find were adhominems are coming from emotionally. What emotion would rive you to use them? Given that they are logically weak, you generally resort to insults when:
1. You are trying to impress a third party of your superiority
2. Fear the other side.

So you would resort to adhominems simply out of insecurity or fear, which are emotions of weakness, emotions that undermine you.

quote: therefore, finding fault in the logic is tantamount to finding fault in the emotions, right? so why would the inverse not be true? i find fault in your emotional pre-dispositions and defeat your logic position at the root.

An insult i no way finds fault with the toher side- it ascribes a fault based on your emotion, and the hope that the third parties who are present share some notions similar to you.

And No, you conflation of logic and emotion is in the end incorrect as well. We may use logic to justify underlying feelings to ourselves and others, but the tool of logic (for that is what, logic and reason are, tools) is not born of your emotions anymore than any other tool of ours was born from our emotions.

	03-07-2004 03:53									#133
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: So the answer to Albert's question is: Ad hominems are legit in circumstances where we have to make a decision quickly and the only evidence we have is our evidence of a person's credibility or intelligence. In other cases they are lousy argumentative techniques because they don't serve to uncover the evidentiary basis of the beliefs themselves

Surely you can make a proper argument in the time it takes to spew invectives.

	03-07-2004 04:04									#134
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Molly Bloom: there is one big difference between what i described and your examples. The racist's plan concerns the schooling in a mainly minority area so there is a relation and one could realistically infer that the racist's education policy is racially based. Hitler's racism had nothing to do with his building of the autobahn.

Your racists's education plan is a bit sketchy on details.

We know the primary purpose of the autobahn- the facilitation of military transport.

Where were these military vehicles going to go, and to what end?

By the by- Picasso wasn't solely a Cubist- neither his Blue nor his Rose periods could be accurately described as Cubist, and he also had a 'Surrealist' stage and a neo-Classical phase.

Da Vinci also did a self-portrait.

The Mona Lisa's 'smile' has precious little to do with how well the painting is constructed or painted. You might as well point out she doesn't have eyebrows.

	03-07-2004 06:27									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: But when critiqueing an artist, don't you also critique the idea or thing that inspired the work as well as the work itself? You critique a Picasso painting on its own grounds AND that which it attempted to represent... why did Picasso choose this idea/thing? was it a good one to choose? did he fulfill the idea's/thing's unconcealment or portrayal that is the work?

Art is a poor analogy since not only does one not critique it in the same manner as a logical position, since art is inherently emotive whereas a reasoned argument is not. Now you can deconstruct it, and then critically analyse that, but there you resort back to the irrelevancy of the person arguing to the argument/conclusion itself. Here's another example. If I am a convicted murderer, arguing an age-old argument, say Descartes "trademark" argument for god. My opponent is an atheist. He may attack me, but what bearing does that have on the argument itself? It's easier of course here because the argument is not one I came up with, merely chose, whereas the issue is clouded when an argument / conclusion is created by the arguer... as far as the debate is concerned, same thing goes. The only difference is in the royalties . I defy you to find a similar example in the Art world, since the example you gave has more in common with a psycho-analysis of the arguer rather than the argument itself. In order to refute me, you need to show why ad hominems affect the argument in question. Without using ad hominems .

quote: the correctness of an arguement is analogous to the beauty of a work of art. I'm not discussing the beauty of the arguement but its equivalent.

Different kettle of fish. Aesthetics isn't related to critical theory in so far as a debate is concerned. Now I could get existentialist on you and say that all is art anyway since the logical merit of any given argument is equally, necessarily and relativistically 0, but that's beside the point, since a debate in this context still refuses to allow ad hominems.

quote: Nietzsche's (and Hume's) 'emotivism', as Whaleboy calls it

Mine is better described by Ayer and Stevenson, or at least based upon that (since they deal with moral prescriptivism whereas I'm taking a wider approach... same logic at work though). Hume, of course, would be woefully dissatisfied at the use of ad hominem to bridge the fact/value distinction .

quote: Nietzsche's annoyance with the soulless reason of Kant and Schopenhaur and his emphasis on the spirit, the emotions, and the plurality of the soul can allow one to infer that he would argue roughly what i am argueing.

Hardly, the phenomologists have a logic of their own that needn't resort to ad hominem. Of course, it's easier with a phenomenologist to analyse their character, Sartre being the best example in my opinion however that does not affect their views one bit. Again you need to show how an attack on a person rationally affects the argument purported.

	03-07-2004 22:09									#136
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Usually, it is "you're an idiot, so we shouldn't believe you." This is not a fallacy because we do in fact take idiocy as grounds for not believing someone.

However, the point is still the same: you are not attacking his argument.

If he's an idiot, surely you have no problems refuting any arguments he puts forth.

	03-07-2004 22:15									#137
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If someone is an idiot, then the position they're advocating will likely reflect that idiocy, so you should still argue the position, not the person. Simply dismissing the other person as an idiot just makes you look weak and unable to argue the point at hand.

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer The racist's plan concerns the schooling in a mainly minority area so there is a relation and one could realistically infer that the racist's education policy is racially based.

The same is true of the racist example. If a racist is advocating something, then his plan will probably reflect that racism, in which case you can argue against the plan without resorting to an ad hominem. If the plan is racist, we don't need to attack the person, that would be redundant.

If, however, the plan happens to be free of racism, despite the person's known bias, then the ad hominem is pointless and does nothing for the debate except include a useless variable.

	03-07-2004 22:21									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer a logical position is not self-sufficient. The basic level of being is the level of instincts.

I am amused, AS. You don't even understand the basics of logic, yet you are trying to push a position wrt to debates.

Logical positions are never self-sufficient. They are all based on premeses, which are assumptions or statements taken to be true.

Another thing is, taking about basic level of blah blah blah has nothing to do with logic at all.

	03-07-2004 22:22									#139
	Support Apolyton

Hey, ad hominems are a perfectly acceptable, common technique in debates between presidential candidates. And look how useful and meaningful America's political dialogue has become!

	03-07-2004 22:23									#140
	Full PM-box? Change here!

UR: Each argument relies on assumptions and if we don't question those assumptions then we must rely on trust, and or concurrence of those assumptions in the debate. Reputation, so to speak, is merely a question of trust, a wholly rational affair on its own merit. That is of course easily solved by examining the assumptions further and finding a point where you concur, and so you can debate upwards again.

	03-07-2004 22:26									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

[threadjack]

Were you trying an MtG on Speer?

[/threadjack]

	03-07-2004 22:28									#142
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Elok Hey, ad hominems are a perfectly acceptable, common technique in debates between presidential candidates. And look how useful and meaningful America's political dialogue has become!

	03-07-2004 22:32									#143
	Got spare money?

quote: Were you trying an MtG on Speer?

I've been trying that for months!!

Did it work?

	03-07-2004 23:02									#144
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Oh, and in keeping with my ongoing obsession with C.S. Lewis (see how nice I am? I gave you an ad hominem opening!), I invite you to google the word "bulverism." It turns out there are lots of links out there explaining why it's bad to undermine arguments with an amateur psychoanalysis of the person who gave them.

For starters, any such reply is fundamentally flawed because it's based on your own (prejudiced) evaluation of another person's ostensible prejudices. From the point of view that we're all determined in our ideals by innate factors, there is no objective measure of truth. Except maybe a shrink, but he might support his set of beliefs because he was sodomized by a great-grandson of Sigmund Freud as a child, and so on. While it may be true that we believe only what we want to, there's no way to effectively argue from that premise.

	03-07-2004 23:27									#145
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy I've been trying that for months!! Did it work?

He seems... crushed.

It works!

	03-07-2004 23:37									#146
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Picasso may be a hard example what with him being a cubist but take Da Vinci's Mona Lisa... not only do you judge the actual work itself but also the thing from which the work was derived. If Da Vinci chose to paint a woman from the start and not himself... if Da Vinci painted another woman with different characteristics... if Da Vinci chose to not portray the Mona Lisa with her grin... all these are pre-work things from which a different work could have been derived. Those pre-work things are the emotions to the logical position that is the work. Why would a thourough art criticism include a question of "Why this work this way?" while intellectual debate does not?

Sure it does.

You can always tell that a debator* has already lost when he resorts to logical fallacies (which includes ad hominem) because he cannot construct a proper counterargument


* Used loosely

	04-07-2004 06:31									#147
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger However, the point is still the same: you are not attacking his argument. If he's an idiot, surely you have no problems refuting any arguments he puts forth.

Sure, but it's still a good inference in the majority of situations. Think about how many times you infer the truth or falsity of someone's claim based on their credibility.

As I was trying to point out above - statements like this are bad debating techniques, but they aren't irrational. Ad hominems are not formal (logical) fallacies, they are informal (useless with reference to the context of debate).

	04-07-2004 06:45									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

"Useless with reference to the context of debate..."

Like arguing over what kind of fallacy it is in technical terms when you're the only philosophy nut here and it's useless either way?

	04-07-2004 06:49									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

No - such inferences are incredibly useful and we use them all the time. Albert seems to be confused because he can't separate a formal fallacy from an informal one.

	04-07-2004 07:12									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

But if they're bad debating technique, it doesn't matter what kind of fallacy they are for the purposes of the discussion, they shouldn't be respected as "legit," as AS puts it, right?

Don't try to argue with me. I've had several glasses and have become omniscient. Peon.