These remarks provide an excellent pedagogical example!
Your argument below is an ad hominem attack. The statements:"you that you are not able for normal social interaction" and "you do not have ability to understand sarcasm or hostile intentions, if they are hidden behind formally correct language." are both attacks on the person, and not the person's statement. I am certainly capable of making such attacks, but I usually avoid them. At least I know when I am using ad hominem and when I am not. Ad hominem is a fallacious argument based an irrelevant attack on an opponents ability to make an argument vs the opponents argument itself.
On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
It is understandable, for you that you are not able for normal social interaction, therefore you do not have ability to understand sarcasm or hostile intentions, if they are hidden behind formally correct language. See, no derogatory names used, but the content was EXTREMELY insulting. At least it was meant as such.
Insulting comments and ad hominem are two different things.
Therefore your theory about ad hominem is flawed.
This is a fallacious argument, based on the false assumption that ad hominem and insulting comments are necessarily the same thing.
You really does not use derogatory names, such as "senile", "blind", "idiot" in order to insult persons.
I did not imply using such names were *necessary*, only that the use of such names attacking the person instead of his arguments is *sufficient* for an ad hominem. Such an attack is not a logical argument.
Try to understand that. It is completely irrelevant what words you are using, but only thing that matters is how people perceive your writings.
You do not seem to understand the meaning of ad hominem.Do you find this remark insulting? It is not an attack on you in order to discredit your argument. If it said you are too stupid or too ignorant to discuss logic then that would be ad hominem. Saying your remarks indicate a lack of understanding of a definition is not an ad hominem attack. It is a relevant statement based on the content of your argument.
If you did not meant to be insulting, then it is your fault if someone feels your writing as offending.
Some people take any disagreement as insulting. When the degree of disagreement is extreme the insult is then extreme.
Most often the most insulting thing is that the one who is
writing is just ignorant and too stupid to admit his ignorance.
–Jouni
Insult, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. Ad hominem is another thing altogether. It is a fallacious form of argument.
I am still waiting for an example from you of Krivit using an ad hominem attack against Rossi and Levi. If you have none then your statement, "... Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and
Levi", is in error.
2011/9/30 Horace Heffner <[email protected]><:On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:And Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and Levi. By for what reason?Here the definition of ad hominem seems distorted. Criticizing a paper or posting or experimental approach is not ad hominem. Calling someone aderogatory name, like "fool", "snake" or "clown" is.Where is an example of ad hominem attack by Krivit? It may well exist, butI don't recall seeing such. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
