LightGigantic's Defense Thread

[lightgigantic]

Wrong, and precisely my point. It is only an ad hominem if you are ignoring the pertinent discussion points, and directing your argument towards something regarding the discusser. And again, there is the misconception in your post that ad hominems are bad things or insults. They aren't. Most ad hominems are neutral, or even positive.

If I ask you to trust the mathematics of a man because he is Asian, I am making an ad hominem fallacy. Appeals to authority are a special type of ad hominem, so common that they deserve their own Latin jargon. Trust him, he has a PhD. That is an ad hominem as well, though most would not be so generic, and call it argumentum ad verecundiam.

I was discussing ecological issues the other day and a friend pointed out that I was wrong about something because I drive a V8. Ad hominem. Nothing rude about his point, but he wasn't finding anything wrong in my argument, instead he pointed out what seemed to him a contradiction in my character.

All of this is germane to the discussion about LG because he brings up this cop-out all the time, and I have yet to see him use it accurately. And Sam just goes to show that he isn't alone in this. People who do all their arguing on forums have been brainwashed into thinking that ad hominem means something it doesn't. They have learned incorrectly because of the vast number of posters that feign intelligence by calling an insult an ad hominem, in the hopes that a little Latin will shield them from the burden of actually defending their points.

an ad hom is the attempt to derail the thread by launching into personal attacks and determining that anything said by a person is "stupid" on the basis that one thinks they are "stupid"

I think it could be due to the vast quanitity of your ad homs that I can't recall a single post of yours that examines the substance of what I have advocated - similarly I cannot recall a single post by prince james that is an ad hom, perhaps because he always examines the substance of what I post - both Prince james and yourself are atheists - what do you think the difference is?

 

[lightgigantic]

Bingo...At least in part. Anyone who persues idiotic, irrational and vague arguments and wants them respected, is pained by ad homs.

I don't think giving an ad hom to a genuine idiot is justified, but to someone who is deliberately idiotic, it is deserved.

So in other words you want me to desist from labelling you as a severe ad hommist by dint of your ad homming?

 

[cole grey]

This forum is a special case.
It is part debate and part fun.

The statement "you're a dirty racist bastard," has no effect on the substance of an argument. E.g., calling francois a racist bastard, or an idiot, doesn't affect the debate part of the conversations, i.e. whether IQ scores are an accurate indicator of intelligence, or whatever. The other parts of the posts have to deal with those things. It would be quite different (and boring) here if this forum was structured as pure debate.

E.g., when someone tells sam she is a terrorist it doesn't affect whether tasers are humane, or police too violent.

E.g., if I tell an athiest they are a fundamentalist, it doesn't affect whether or not God exists.

I suppose some people might be foolish enough to agree with the person who appears less retarded than the other person speaking, but that is their own fault for not thinking.

Also to sam - I have seen some very funny, and very "imaginative," ad homs and insults on this forum.
Maybe we need a "pure debate" section on sci forums where any topic can be discussed, but ALL forum rules would be applied, and agreeing to particpate means agreeing to be polite.

Also, Carlin's idea of God is obviously twisted - too bad a lot of religions and dogma agree with it. Sad. He's funny though.

 

[S.A.M.]

This forum is a special case.
It is part debate and part fun.

The statement "you're a dirty racist bastard," has no effect on the substance of an argument. E.g., calling francois a racist bastard, or an idiot, doesn't affect the debate part of the conversations, i.e. whether IQ scores are an accurate indicator of intelligence, or whatever. The other parts of the posts have to deal with those things. It would be quite different (and boring) here if this forum was structured as pure debate.

E.g., when someone tells sam she is a terrorist it doesn't affect whether tasers are humane, or police too violent.

E.g., if I tell an athiest they are a fundamentalist, it doesn't affect whether or not God exists.

I suppose some people might be foolish enough to agree with the person who appears less retarded than the other person speaking, but that is their own fault for not thinking.

Also to sam - I have seen some very funny, and very "imaginative," ad homs and insults on this forum.
Maybe we need a "pure debate" section on sci forums where any topic can be discussed, but ALL forum rules would be applied, and agreeing to particpate means agreeing to be polite.

Also, Carlin's idea of God is obviously twisted - too bad a lot of religions and dogma agree with it. Sad. He's funny though.

I'm not arguing against ad homs, just swivels definition of them.

In LG's case however, the ad homs directed at him do disrupt the discussion. One can almost see the atheists reflectively patting their own backs and that of each other, in their efforts to outdo one another in disparaging him.

 

[cole grey]

Every religious person I know personally who does more than merely give lip-service to their religion (e.g. not including those that have never questioned it but do it merely out of habit / upbringing etc) have 100% conviction that God exists. With most it is a case of "Of course God exists" and that is it.

You are saying that if asked, all of them would say, I don't ever have a doubt that God is real, NEVER??? Maybe it is 50/50 like Godless said, but I can vouch for many of the 50 you haven't met.

But is this doubt a true % chance that God does not exist - or merely a momentary lapse of understanding the nature of the God?

I'm sure if you open it up to the statement, "SOMETHING is out there," more people would say 100%, but saying "something exists" like the universal law of cause and effect, or the force, is different than saying "God exists."

 

[cole grey]

In LG's case however, the ad homs directed at him do disrupt the discussion. One can almost see the atheists reflectively patting their own backs and that of each other, in their efforts to outdo one another in disparaging him.

False winners abound when no trophies are ever agreed upon.

One thing becomes clear after a relatively short time on sciforums - who is talking shit and who has some sense, even though they like to talk shit. E.g, some people are racists and somewhat intelligent, others post pictures of monkeys and are just clowns - to laugh with... or at.

I would have to agree with swivel that an insult used properly is not an ad hom.
I mean, if Roman were in a debate about the properties of light, and called his opponent a fag, what would happen? Does it undermine anyone's position in the debate?

 

[S.A.M.]

False winners abound when no trophies are never agreed upon.

One thing becomes clear after a relatively short time on sciforums - who is talking shit and who has some sense, even though they like to talk shit. E.g, some people are racists and somewhat intelligent, others post pictures of monkeys and are just clowns - to laugh with... or at.

I would have to agree with swivel that an insult used properly is not an ad hom.
I mean, if Roman were in a debate about the properties of light, and called his opponent a fag, what would happen? Does it undermine anyone's position in the debate?

Lets just say that calling someone a fag or a terrorist in the course of a debate is very different from turning every thread into a discussion of a persons intellectual abilities. So much so that it becomes the "real issue" of the thread, overwhelming even the premise of the OP.

 

[swivel]

Lets just say that calling someone a fag or a terrorist in the course of a debate is very different from turning every thread into a discussion of a persons intellectual abilities. So much so that it becomes the "real issue" of the thread, overwhelming even the premise of the OP.

Still not an ad hominem.

And the people that are taking my correction of LG to mean that I support insults are making a different fallacy. I do not condone insults in debates, and if that is what someone is doing, point the finger at them and demand that they behave. Call an insult an insult.

But don't call it an ad hominem when it isn't. Plain and simple, the phrase "ad hominem" has a very specific definition and use. People like LG and Sam, and thousands of other forum debaters are very confused on this subject and are distorting the meaning of the phrase.

I would even go so far to say that LG's abuse of the phrase is in itself an insult of sorts, and he knows it. He is being passive aggressive in an attempt to gain the upper hand in debates that he has no foothold in. For people like him, the purpose of a debate is to "win". It is all done with a vast, unseen audience in mind that he desires to impress. It is never about learning or teaching.

All of these are negative comments about LG's character that I have observed from many days of reading his posts. They are not ad hominems. I'm not trying to prove a point on abortion or capital punishment by attacking his character, the subject under debate is his character. In this thread, one way to commit an ad hominem would be to say that my opinion on LG is invalid because my posting style contains too many ad hominems. Which is EXACTLY what LG does at the top of this page. He actually commits the very thing that he is incapable of understanding.

If this sort of evidence is not enough to label LG an idiot, then what in the world is that word reserved for? When a person calls things that aren't an ad hominem an ad hominem (dozens of times daily), while at the same time committing one himself, while ignoring all reasonable attempts to educate him... well if that doesn't squarely make someone an idiot, then we might as well discard the word as without use.

LMBACIFNEKWAAHIT = 8

 

[cole grey]

And the people that are taking my correction of LG to mean that I support insults are making a different fallacy. I do not condone insults in debates, and if that is what someone is doing, point the finger at them and demand that they behave.

If this sort of evidence is not enough to label LG an idiot, then what in the world is that word reserved for? When a person calls things that aren't an ad hominem an ad hominem (dozens of times daily), while at the same time committing one himself, while ignoring all reasonable attempts to educate him... well if that doesn't squarely make someone an idiot, then we might as well discard the word as without use.

Is the guy who says they don't condone insults, who then clearly calls someone an idiot (twice), an idiot? Or maybe just a bit confused? Isn't that an insult?
Just wondering.

 

[Tnerb]

[post deleted from fear of ad hom criticism]
---

 

[Godless]

In LG's case however, the ad homs directed at him do disrupt the discussion. One can almost see the atheists reflectively patting their own backs and that of each other, in their efforts to outdo one another in disparaging him.

Disparaging him? Are you serious? I think he does this all on his own, well enough, and this may or may not be ad-hom, but it is afterall an observation of his debates!

In this thread, one way to commit an ad hominem would be to say that my opinion on LG is invalid because my posting style contains too many ad hominems. Which is EXACTLY what LG does at the top of this page. He actually commits the very thing that he is incapable of understanding.

If this sort of evidence is not enough to label LG an idiot, then what in the world is that word reserved for?

Logicaly challenged? LOL...

 

[baumgarten]

[post deleted from fear of ad hom criticism]
---

Coward!

 

[lightgigantic]

Disparaging him? Are you serious? I think he does this all on his own, well enough, and this may or may not be ad-hom, but it is afterall an observation of his debates!



Logicaly challenged? LOL...

There are atheists here who don't view every thread as an opportunityt to attack character. In other words discussion is actually progressive, despite opposing views. If you also condsider yourself an atheist, what do you suppose is the difference between yourself and them?

 

[Godless]

If you also condsider yourself an atheist, what do you suppose is the difference between yourself and them?

I'm a southern atheist!

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm a southern atheist!

assuming that the ability to engage in progressive discussion wasn't dependant on geography, what else would it indicate?

 

[Godless]

assuming that I find someone to engage with the brains to have a progressive discussion, we do tend to get along well, however in your case, your lacking in some department. Mainly brains!

 

[lightgigantic]

assuming that I find someone to engage with the brains to have a progressive discussion, we do tend to get along well, however in your case, your lacking in some department. Mainly brains!

By brains I take it you mean sharing the same needs, interests and concerns as yourself (ie another atheist who agrees with your particular strain of atheism) - how many progressive discussions have you had innvolving a theist on sci forums (oh wait don't tell me - theists don't have brains).

You can advocate a philosophy that everyone in the world is deluded except for you and a few of your friends, but such a philosophy is hard to meet with a progressive dialogue

 

[cole grey]

Directed to Godless from LG -

how many progressive discussions have you had innvolving a theist on sci forums (oh wait don't tell me - theists don't have brains).

I have to say, although Godless is as over-the-top as anyone with the "theists are dumb" thing, I think any of the back and forth we have had has been fairly free of personal attacks. Of course it HAS been a while, maybe I am not remembering correctly - but I think I am. At least i can't remember any real insult laden discussions.

Point = I'll have to say, Godless is ABLE to participate in a reasonable discussion, unless I am remembering incorrectly.

 

[swivel]

Is the guy who says they don't condone insults, who then clearly calls someone an idiot (twice), an idiot? Or maybe just a bit confused? Isn't that an insult?
Just wondering.

I'm insulting him. Demonstrating a point, if you will. Fighting the good fight in the name of abused Latin!

 

[KennyJC]

You can advocate a philosophy that everyone in the world is deluded except for you and a few of your friends

Are you trying to say this is ridiculous? Most of the world blindly believes in their particular religion and all the supernatural nonsense that goes along with it. They believe in ghosts, Astrology, fortune telling, faces on mars, aliens on Earth, etc...

To find people who are skeptical of all superstitious things, is very rare.