|
|
#10
06-11-2010, 01:54 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[5][6][7][8][9] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone. "X's argument is invalid because X's analogy is false, there are differences between a republic and a democracy. But then again, X is idiotically ignorant." is gratuitously abusive but is not a fallacy because X's argument is actually addressed directly in the opening statement. "X is idiotically ignorant" is not a fallacy of itself. It is an argument that X doesn't know the difference between a republic and a democracy. This is not to be confused with a true fallacy, which would be "X is idiotically ignorant [of politics], so why should we listen to him now?" "In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."[5] "You are just an ignorant twit." This is an insult and it is abusive, but it is not an argument. Because it is not an argument, it cannot be a fallacy. Of course, that doesn't mean that such personal insults are OK - just that when they appear alone, they aren't logical fallacies.[10] do not pass go do not collect $200 | |||
|
|
||||
|
|
Threaded Mode