PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>>>I dunno *where* they get 'nY' O mee' .... Bradd's explanation makes
>>>sense, though -- many English speakers don't like multiple consecutive
>>>vowel sounds and gradual modification has changed the pronunciation.
>>
>>
>> Oh, I forgot to mention this the first time: Some English speakers elide
>> the A in "Naomi" instead of inserting a Y sound. For example, my great
>> aunt's name was Naomi, and her family called her "Nomie."
>
> I always heard it pronounced "Nay-OH-mee".

That one doesn't bother me. It at least matches the letters. 'Nyomi',
though... until Bradd explained it (and his explanation makes sense), I
couldn't figure out where the 'Aye' sound came from.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
news:slrnd61p96.8j7.bradd+news@szonye.com:


>> BULLSHIT. "Many logicians"? You can't find a single one with the
>> balls to make that claim except yourself, jackass ....
>
> I quoted an encyclopedia that makes the claim. Jeff Heikkinen, who
> teaches the subject, backed it up. You're out of your league.

Uh, Jeff sided with Michael.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>>>I dunno *where* they get 'nY' O mee' .... Bradd's explanation makes
>>>sense, though -- many English speakers don't like multiple consecutive
>>>vowel sounds and gradual modification has changed the pronunciation.
>>
>>
>> Oh, I forgot to mention this the first time: Some English speakers elide
>> the A in "Naomi" instead of inserting a Y sound. For example, my great
>> aunt's name was Naomi, and her family called her "Nomie."
>
> I always heard it pronounced "Nay-OH-mee".

I think it varies from dialect to dialect. Here in San Jose, "Nigh-o-me"
is almost universal. In Detroit, "Nay-o-me" was dominant, although in
the accent common to black Detroiters, "Nigh-o-me" is more usual.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> However, some people are interpreting that definition as meaning "if
> an argument contains any ad attacks, that makes the whole thing an ad
> hominem fallacy" because some parts of it attack the man instead of
> the argument.

Sort of. Many arguments have multiple lines of attack. When a line of
attack relies on irrelevant personal details rather than reason, that
line is logically invalid (ad hominem fallacy). The overall argument may
still be valid, so long as another line of attack is still valid.

> You're insisting on people taking your message as a whole; they're
> looking at individual independent sub-arguments and finding ad
> hominems that way. In particular, if you ever say both "Jeff is bad"
> and "his argument is bad" in the same sentence, it's hard to see how
> that couldn't be an ad hominem attack.

Right. Half of that sentence is ad hominem fallacy; the other half is
(presumably) valid reasoning. Even though the second line of argument is
valid, the first line is still fallacious.

Essentially, any irrelevant personal detail is ad hominem fallacy. (Some
personal attacks are relevant, and therefore not fallacious.) That
doesn't necessarily make the whole argument false or even invalid, just
as a single straw man may not invalidate a whole argument -- so long as
it isn't the whole argument.

MSB doesn't seem to grasp this idea, that fallacies don't need to poison
the whole argument to be fallacies.

> On the other hand, your [MSB's] attacks clutter up your message and
> lead me to forget most of what your non-attack argument is.

That's exactly why many people consider it a red-herring fallacy.

> I suspect this is true of a lot of people. If you want to convince
> the peanut gallery more often, you might want to tone things down a
> little.

I sincerely doubt that MSB's goal is to convince people. Otherwise, he
wouldn't waste so much time ranting at easy targets.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>> BULLSHIT. "Many logicians"? You can't find a single one with the
>>> balls to make that claim except yourself, jackass ....

Bradd wrote:
>> I quoted an encyclopedia that makes the claim. Jeff Heikkinen, who
>> teaches the subject, backed it up. You're out of your league.

> Your grasp of nuance is blatantly incorrect, buckwheat.
> It's very simple.
>
> You are wrong.
> You are a moron.
>
> The second sentence there is not a logical fallacy.
> I *dare* you to prove otherwise.

First: What a poor dodge. You dared me to produce evidence, and I did.

Second: The second sentence /is/ a fallacy, specifically ad hominem
fallacy, even if it does not invalidate the whole argument. This is
basic reasoning, and you're failing. You have the juice painted on so
thick that you can't even face the facts when a critical thinking
teacher explains them to you in your own language.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
news:slrnd62ndh.aor.bradd+news@szonye.com:

> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>>> BULLSHIT. "Many logicians"? You can't find a single one with the
>>>> balls to make that claim except yourself, jackass ....
>
> Bradd wrote:
>>> I quoted an encyclopedia that makes the claim. Jeff Heikkinen, who
>>> teaches the subject, backed it up. You're out of your league.
>
>> Your grasp of nuance is blatantly incorrect, buckwheat.
>> It's very simple.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>> You are a moron.
>>
>> The second sentence there is not a logical fallacy.
>> I *dare* you to prove otherwise.
>
> First: What a poor dodge. You dared me to produce evidence, and I did.
>
> Second: The second sentence /is/ a fallacy, specifically ad hominem
> fallacy, even if it does not invalidate the whole argument. This is
> basic reasoning, and you're failing. You have the juice painted on so
> thick that you can't even face the facts when a critical thinking
> teacher explains them to you in your own language.

No, Michael's right on this one. The important thing to remember is that
ad hominem only exists as a fallacy when it is used AS an argument, not
ALONGSIDE an argument.

You are a moron, therefore you are wrong is an ad hominem fallacy.
You are wrong, therefore you are a moron is just rude. And Michael never,
ever claimed he wasn't rude.

You're right that this is basic reasoning, but it's not Michael that's
failing. You're treating A->B and B->A as the same logical construction,
which is very, very wrong.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
news:slrnd62ndh.aor.bradd+news@szonye.com:

> First: What a poor dodge. You dared me to produce evidence, and I did.

Also: Your own evidence does not support your position.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> I'm going to distinguish "ad hominem attack" from "ad hominem fallacy"

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Stop. The former is a made up pile of bullshit that is nothing more
> than redundant fancy latin ('to the man attack'?) --

How exactly is that "redundant," juicebag?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Bradd W. Szonye just
said...
> Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org> wrote:
> > (Okay, seriously, the idea is this. "Taking the place of argument" can
> > mean "no argument is present, only personal attacks". But it can also
> > mean "serving to distract from the argument", most often from weaknesses
> > in same. I'm not attached to either usage and thus, not about to argue
> > that one is right and the other is wrong, but I can see both as being
> > legitimate.
>
> Bingo!

Uh... that part doesn't really support you OR Michael, Bradd. If
anything it suggests you're both nitwits for a) having entrenched
positions on the matter and b) arguing about it for so long when the
answer I would use if a student asked would be "ask the prof".

(BTW, I don't teach the stuff per se, merely grade it. I mention that
occasionally because I think it does mean I'm in a position to judge it
- or at least, four different people now who *do* teach the stuff, plus
their bosses who also do and every student I know of who has said
anything, seem to think so - but I won't be teaching it myself until
late next year at the soonest.)

For what it's worth I suspect the majority view would be MSB's. The
workbook being used by the prof I'm currently working for, for example
(quick - what fallacy am I committing, given that this is the only
evidence I'll be giving in this post? 🙂, says:

When such a counter-argument is made by means of bringing up some fact,
not about the original argument itself, but about the person making it,
the counter-argument attacks the person. For such an argument to be
fallacious is for the facts mentioned about the person not to be
relevant to evaluating the person's claim or argument. Such an argument
is not fallacious when the facts about the person genuinely *are*
relevant to evaluating the person's claim or argument.

(Wow, I didn't notice how badly written that was until I transcribed it.
Had to make three Will saves versus rewriting it. And that's after
leaving the long and almost entirely extraneous first sentence out.)

This pretty clearly supports MSB's view.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:58:22 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:up6061diads17r559uf45chbtamvp8h5vn@4ax.com...
>> >The time frame *IS* important, when speaking to hamfistyness.
>>
>> It really isn't. You can come up with a THISITEMMUSTBEGONENOW solution
>that
>> is hamfisted, and one that isn't, both of which eliminate the item in
>> question.
>
>Ok, then, tuff guy, go for it. What's the non-hamfisted "now" solution?
>Nobody's come up with one yet.

Nothing you'd agree with. Several good solutions have already been
presented.

I'm thinking that you just call them all hamfisted so you don't have to
admit how much better other people are at this sort of thing than you are,
when you go on and on about what a great DM you are.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:51:49 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:m36061pr3rvi5krokk265n67p5tiek2aiu@4ax.com...
>> >The cause is in game, so you have to do SOMETHING in game.
>>
>> That's the underlying problem with your "solution", that you feel
>something
>> must be done about it in-game. The simple truth is that you don't. Fixing
>> the problem in-game is certainly a possible solution, but hardly the only
>> one, and does nothing to solve the REAL problem, which is player jealousy.
>
>I take it you have the perfect solution to the problem of jealousy, a
>problem that plagues humanity since from before time was time?

There's a difference between jealousy and unfounded jealousy. An
intelligent person, when it is explained to them how they are not as
disadvantaged at they might think they are, lets go.

>You want to solve the unsolvable problem, and that's fine, go ahead, bash
>your head against a wall, by all means, knock yourself out. Me, I go the
>easier, more expedient and ultimately more achievable route of solving the
>problem by actually finding and removing the source of it.

Because pissing off someone by arbitrarily stripping him of something that
you think is a mistake is *so* much better, yes? Instead of unfounded
jealousy on the part of the other players, we have well-founded
"F-The-DM"itis on the part of the guy who got boned.

>> >PRECISELY my point. This is a METAGAME problem, that has an INGAME
>cause.
>> >Thank you for agreeing with me.
>>
>> All metagame problems have in-game causes, you moron.
>
>Not so much. Many metagame problems stem from players not getting along
>with each other, from players who are sick or tired or having personal
>problems, from players who didn't get the last slice of pizza, from
>whatever. It can have literally NOTHING to do with the game.

Those are not metagame problems. Those are real life problems. You can have
all of those exact same problems with any social gathering.

You still don't understand what a metagame is, it's no surprise that you
can't deal with solving problems there.

Answer this one, Jeff: If there is no game, how can there be a metagame?

>> >I guess that's the problem, then. You don't see how something that isn't
>> >used can be a problem.
>>
>> I tried to lay it out as clearly as possible, but you still don't get it.
>> Not that I ever thought you would, but it is sad to see it come to
>> fruition.
>
>I understand what you were trying to say. You don't see how something that
>isn't used can be a problem. It's sad that you don't see how it could be an
>issue.

Metagame issue, not in-game issue. The crux of your misunderstanding.

>> >This is, of course, ignoring the fact that this particular problem has
>> >nothing to do with reason and logic, but rather emotion and perception.
>>
>> Change the perception, and the emotion is changed along with it.
>
>In a perfect world, that MIGHT be true. However, we do not live in a
>perfect world, nor do we interact with rational people all the time. Change
>the perception and the emotions are automatically changed, huh? Wow, it
>must be nice to live in YOUR fantasy world.

It must be pretty terrible to live in your world where people aren't
receptive to different ideas.

>> You've never once in your life been happy or upset about something based
>on
>> partial information, and when you found out more, your mood changed? Talk
>> about not being human...
>
>Of course I have, but that's not what we're talking about, now is it?

Yes, it is.

> We're talking about people who are percieving things based on COMPLETE
>information.

Incorrect. The other players believe the rageberries are unbalancing when
they are not. Therefore the players are basing their opinion on incomplete
or false information. Fix that, and the problem gets fixed along with it.

>> >It's great that your players are this paragon of reason, but the bottom
>line
>> >is that this is NOT a reason-based issue. It's envy, jealousy, it's
>hardly
>> >reasonable.
>>
>> Correction: It is UNFOUNDED envy/jealousy. Which is a big difference.
>
>The sad thing is that you don't recognize that envy and jealousy need not
>have a basis in reality to be a factor.

The sad thing is that you don't know how real jealousy and unfounded
jealousy might be dealt with differently.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, have you looked over my class framework pages? What do
>> you think?
>
> Neat ideas in there. Do you use these classes currently IYC? How
> exactly do the Basic classes work with the Advanced classes? Do you
> have to start with a Basic class at first level and "graduate" to an
> Advanced class?

They aren't currently in use -- I'm not in a game right now, so they
haven't been playtested (which is part of the reason I'm soliciting
comments).

My initial plan was to do something like d20Modern -- basic classes to
start, then go into advanced classes, and then prestige classes.

.. basic classes are highly generic and flexible
.. advanced classes are 'more categorized'; you trade off some of the
flexibility for greater power
.. prestige classes are very specific to organizations and the like
in-game; trade off even more flexibility for yet greater power.

I think it said in the notes under Basic Classes that it's not expected
that a character would take more than ten levels in a basic class.
There's nothing to *stop* a character from doing so, but the expectation
was that the advanced classes would offer a little bit more. Originally
this was so, but in examining the advanced classes I found most of the
ones I was coming up with actually weren't needed.

Cleric
fullcaster halfmartial with the Godsworn feat (prereqs Godsworn
feat, able to cast second-level spells in spells paths of church
Tradition). No skill points to speak of, so gain free ranks in
these paths. Good Will and Fortitude, can take [Divine] feats.

Holy Warrior
fullmartial (halfcaster|halfskill)[1] with the Godsworn feat
(prereqs Godsworn, +3 BAB). Good Will and Fortitude, can take
[Divine] feats.

In both cases, the only significant difference is that the character
adds [Divine] feats to his class list. The cleric's free ranks in
spells help, but probably aren't that big a deal. The advanced save
isn't much either. Given that I'm modeling 'divine power' through
channeling rather than spellcasting, it started to make more sense to
divide 'spellcasting priest' from 'channeling priest' (but still allow
overlap between them, for those who want it).

In the end, I found that you could do almost exactly the same thing with
basic classes as you could with advanced classes, without changing
classes. As such, there seems to be little reason to keep them.


In d20 Modern, you might start with a Strong character and go into
Soldier. In this framework, you just focus on stuff a soldier would do.
You take Fullmartial (get lots of weapon profs), Good Fort (get your
armor up), probably Halfskill (reasonable range of mundane abilities)
and Medium Reflex (a bit of mobility, movement). I can't come up with
much else a soldier would likely *have* that can't be modeled through
feat, allegiance, or other in-game construct.


Prestige classes I'll probably still keep. Right now each basic class
gives a feat at each odd level; a prestige class may offer about a
feat's worth of goodness every 1.5 levels or so... but the feat list is
nailed down and there are probably greater restraints on what you can
do. I've even considered making it one feat of goodness every level...
but you get no say in what the feats are. Assuming a 10-level PrC,
you're looking at 5 additional feats -- about 1-2 levels higher in
ability[1] than normal, but inflexible. Some of those may be 'wasted'
if the PrC doesn't do exactly what you want. If it's 1/1.5, in a
10-level PrC you're looking at just a couple of feats more, which feels
a little low.

[1] rule of thumb: three decent feats == ~1 level

--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Chipacabra" <chipb@efn.org> wrote in message
news:Xns963AA5CC1662Cchipbefnorg@216.196.97.131...
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
> >> BULLSHIT. "Many logicians"? You can't find a single one with the
> >> balls to make that claim except yourself, jackass ....
> >
> > I quoted an encyclopedia that makes the claim. Jeff Heikkinen, who
> > teaches the subject, backed it up. You're out of your league.
>
> Uh, Jeff sided with Michael.

This thing where people cite evidence that disproves their contentions
is really getting amusing.

Goslin does it, Bradd does it. Goslin lies blatantly about the facts of
the case, Bradd lies blatantly about the facts of the case.

All Bradd has to do is acquire a taste for cheesy-poofs and he and
Goslin will be indistinguishable from one another in their intellectual
ineptitudes.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Heikkinen" <no.way@jose.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ccb2575132c478d98a110@news.easynews.com...

> For what it's worth I suspect the majority view would be MSB's.

Although I think the pissing match here has become tedious beyond belief, I
am on the side of your "majority view".

> The workbook being used by the prof I'm currently working for, for example
> (quick - what fallacy am I committing, given that this is the only
> evidence I'll be giving in this post? 🙂,

Cute.

> says:
>
> When such a counter-argument is made by means of bringing up some fact,
> not about the original argument itself, but about the person making it,
> the counter-argument attacks the person. For such an argument to be
> fallacious is for the facts mentioned about the person not to be
> relevant to evaluating the person's claim or argument. Such an argument
> is not fallacious when the facts about the person genuinely *are*
> relevant to evaluating the person's claim or argument.

This is pretty much exactly the definition of ad hominem I was taught.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Hxi8e.7592$An2.531@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Chipacabra" <chipb@efn.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns963AA5CC1662Cchipbefnorg@216.196.97.131...
>> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
>> >> BULLSHIT. "Many logicians"? You can't find a single one with the
>> >> balls to make that claim except yourself, jackass ....
>> >
>> > I quoted an encyclopedia that makes the claim. Jeff Heikkinen, who
>> > teaches the subject, backed it up. You're out of your league.
>>
>> Uh, Jeff sided with Michael.
>
> This thing where people cite evidence that disproves their contentions
> is really getting amusing.
>
> Goslin does it, Bradd does it. Goslin lies blatantly about the facts of
> the case, Bradd lies blatantly about the facts of the case.
>
> All Bradd has to do is acquire a taste for cheesy-poofs and he and
> Goslin will be indistinguishable from one another in their intellectual
> ineptitudes.

Don't let's be silly.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd61p96.8j7.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:

>> BULLSHIT. "Many logicians"? You can't find a single one with the
>> balls to make that claim except yourself, jackass ....
>
> I quoted an encyclopedia that makes the claim. Jeff Heikkinen, who
> teaches the subject, backed it up.

?

Which post? The one I recently read firmly supported Michael's view.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd62ndh.aor.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>>> BULLSHIT. "Many logicians"? You can't find a single one with the
>>>> balls to make that claim except yourself, jackass ....
>
> Bradd wrote:
>>> I quoted an encyclopedia that makes the claim. Jeff Heikkinen, who
>>> teaches the subject, backed it up. You're out of your league.
>
>> Your grasp of nuance is blatantly incorrect, buckwheat.
>> It's very simple.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>> You are a moron.
>>
>> The second sentence there is not a logical fallacy.
>> I *dare* you to prove otherwise.
>
> First: What a poor dodge. You dared me to produce evidence, and I did.
>
> Second: The second sentence /is/ a fallacy, specifically ad hominem
> fallacy, even if it does not invalidate the whole argument.

How is that so?

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd62mou.aor.bradd+news@szonye.com...

> Sort of. Many arguments have multiple lines of attack. When a line of
> attack relies on irrelevant personal details rather than reason, that
> line is logically invalid (ad hominem fallacy).

Sure.

> Essentially, any irrelevant personal detail is ad hominem fallacy.

....*if* used as part of the "line of attack" of the argument. If it is
thrown in as an aside to the argument, it is not.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> tussock scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>If I state you are wrong because (i) you're premise doesn't support
>>>your concusion and (ii) you are stupid, I have committed an ad hominem.
>
>>Not really.
>
> Yes, exactly. If you use a personal attack to bolster or distract from
> an argument, that's ad hominem fallacy.

Yes, but *only* when you're otherwise failing to address the
argument in a logical fashion. Distraction, in logical terms, isn't
about you being unable to see the argument; that's simply a matter of
poor presentation.

>>Argumentum ad hominem rejects arguments *falsely*.
>
> Your meaning is unclear, because "falsely" isn't the right word in this
> context.

Fallacially, illogically, whatever. It rejects the argument without
confronting it. Strawman attacks a weaker argument, Ad hominem attacks
the speaker of the argument; neither address the actual argument. It's
just that simple.

>>Saying someone is wrong because they have committed a particular
>>error, and so they are stupid isn't false in regards the original
>>argument; it just contains an added insult.
>
> When the added insult attacks the other guy's credibility, it's almost
> always ad hominem fallacy unless credibility is the focus of the
> argument, as it often is in witness testimony.

Nonsense, the bits you snipped plainly prooved otherwise; simply
being illogical costs the speaker credibilty, which would make the vast
majority of all arguments automatically ad hominem by your definition.
The would make the term useless, and so it should not be used that way.

>>... MSB is fairly consistant in arguing that people who make logical
>>errors are stupid, and likes to bring that argument up whenever
>>they're made.
>
> And that is an example of ad hominem fallacy.

That's nonsense, sonny boy. My version of MSBs argument above *is*
a fallacy (stupid people do make more logical errors, but not all such
errors are made by stupid people; continued illogical reasoning {and
failure to learn, etc} is therefore an indication of stupidity, but not
proof of it. The fallacy is not ad hominem); it includes a simple claim
of locical error.
Claiming your opponent has made an error in logic is an ideal
argument, additions don't change that.

> It's sufficient to point out the error.

Are you suggesting all counter-arguments should be minimalist in
construction? That seems quite silly.

> Ranting about the other guy's stupidity serves no purpose but to
> confuse the issue with emotion (often on both sides, as we often see
> in MSB's case). It derails reason, and that's why many logicians
> consider it fallacious even if it's done in addition to an argument.

That you are unable to control your emotions and remain reasonable
in abusenet is irrelevant to the nature of ad hominem. Furthermore; I
(as part of "we") see no such thing (appeal to popularity), and the
arguments of "many logicians" have not been presented here (appeal to
authority, not all of whom agree).

> And in MSB's case, he gets sloppy once he gets to ranting, such that his
> arguments don't hold up. Point it out, and he vomits up defense
> mechanisms.

That for instance is not argumentum ad hominem, it's simply an
observation taken from too few samples (over generalisation) and ignores
counter-examples you should be aware of (poor induction).

So, Mr "should leave all things that might be false when veiwed on
their own out of otherwise sound arguments", how about setting the good
example? [ <- would be tu torque fallacy, *if* I hadn't otherwise been
adressing the argument ]


PS: here's what you're trying to say, less the nonsense.
"MSBs counter-arguments have a poor style, I (and others on rgfd)
have trouble following lines of reasoning when surrounded by such vile
retoric; at times those he corrects fail to see the actual correction,
and the argument is lost to insults. Such events have negative value to
the newsgroup".
Logically speaking, it's about form, not content. Loud farts
distract from an argument, and they're not a fallacy either.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> If you use a personal attack to bolster or distract from an argument,
>> that's ad hominem fallacy.

tussock wrote:
> Yes, but *only* when you're otherwise failing to address the argument
> in a logical fashion ....

Untrue. A fallacy is still a fallacy even when it's only part of the
argument, even if it doesn't invalidate the argument as a whole.

For example, suppose that you cite five pieces of evidence in support of
a claim. One of them turns out to attack the wrong target (a straw man),
but the other four are valid and sufficient to establish your claim. The
one invalid piece of evidence is /still/ a straw man fallacy, even
though it turns out not to matter.

The same is true for all fallacies, including ad hominem fallacy. If you
make one good argument and four irrelevant personal attacks, you've
committed ad hominem fallacy four times, even if the final argument is
valid and sound. Michael "Juicebag" Brown doesn't want to admit that.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd62n1e.aor.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> The same is true for all fallacies, including ad hominem fallacy. If you
> make one good argument and four irrelevant personal attacks, you've
> committed ad hominem fallacy four times, even if the final argument is
> valid and sound. Michael "Juicebag" Brown doesn't want to admit that.

Bradd, you are wasting everyone's time here with your fundamental
conceit that *everything* in a post is somehow part of an argument (much
less reinforcement of one). It is entirely possible to make one's argument,
and then *move on* to condemnning the speaker for his failures as a rational
human.
Consequently, you are railing at a man of straw.

Stupid Jackass.

(see?)

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd62n1e.aor.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
>>> If you use a personal attack to bolster or distract from an argument,
>>> that's ad hominem fallacy.
>
> tussock wrote:
>> Yes, but *only* when you're otherwise failing to address the argument
>> in a logical fashion ....
>
> Untrue. A fallacy is still a fallacy even when it's only part of the
> argument, even if it doesn't invalidate the argument as a whole.

Sure.

> For example, suppose that you cite five pieces of evidence in support of
> a claim. One of them turns out to attack the wrong target (a straw man),
> but the other four are valid and sufficient to establish your claim. The
> one invalid piece of evidence is /still/ a straw man fallacy, even
> though it turns out not to matter.

That is correct, certainly.

> The same is true for all fallacies, including ad hominem fallacy.

This is true as well, provided the fallacy comes in a form like "Attack on
X, therefore Y." A simple insult, before, after, or during a valid
argument, does not in and of itself invalidate the argument or otherwise
become fallacious.

> If you make one good argument and four irrelevant personal attacks, you've
> committed ad hominem fallacy four times, even if the final argument is
> valid and sound.

I disagree. Those are "irrelevant personal attacks," which may or may not
be fallacious, depending upon their form and context.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

T. Koivula wrote:
> In news:1113695521.263159.118520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
> madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> typed:
> > The books I can't stand are those with characters who meet all
comers
> > with an almost bored detachment, as if they've already read their
own
> > story and know full well they'll come out ahead. IIRC, Eddings is
> > guilty of this in some of his stuff.
>
> Although with Eddings, the overabundance of selfconfidance is usually
> appropriate in the context of the characters and the story. Demigods
> gathering Prophesied Champions to battle a god is a setting that
doesn't
> really call for doubt when facing a few bandits. Not that Eddings'
style
> doesn't have it's shortcomings (a large dose of fairytale where no
> characters die and things go a bit too smoothly etc.) but IMO the
characters
> response to challenges is mostly fitting. Bored when underwhelmed but
faced
> with real threat often enough.

A fair point. I'm not so much talking about the minor challenges, but
the idea that the protagonist is pretty much destined to win out at the
end. The Tamuli, in particular, seemed like Eddings was getting tired
of his own style and just wanted to be done with it. Just my
impression.

Nothing against Eddings, really. His stuff and early TSR novels like
"Crystal Shard" are what opened the door to fantasy reading for me. In
all fairness, I did enjoy the Elenium quite a bit; even with the
repetition of plot elements and character types, I thought it was his
strongest series.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > tussock scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> >> chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>If I state you are wrong because (i) you're premise doesn't
support
> >>>your concusion and (ii) you are stupid, I have committed an ad
hominem.
> >
> >>Not really.
> >
> > Yes, exactly. If you use a personal attack to bolster or distract
from
> > an argument, that's ad hominem fallacy.
>
> Yes, but *only* when you're otherwise failing to address the
> argument in a logical fashion.

*NO*. You cannot somehow magically shield a fallacy by otherwise
making a valid criticism. Why do you think this?

If I say "Your conclusion is wrong, because your premise is wrong, and
you are wrong, because you post so many stupid things to this
newsgroup", the fallacy is there.

> PS: here's what you're trying to say, less the nonsense.

Maybe instead of misreading what others are saying, and putting it in
your own words, you should actually understand what others are saying
first.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Jeff Heikkinen" <no.way@jose.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ccb2575132c478d98a110@news.easynews.com...
>
> > For what it's worth I suspect the majority view would be MSB's.
>
> Although I think the pissing match here has become tedious beyond
belief, I
> am on the side of your "majority view".
>
> > The workbook being used by the prof I'm currently working for, for
example
> > (quick - what fallacy am I committing, given that this is the only
> > evidence I'll be giving in this post? 🙂,
>
> Cute.
>
> > says:
> >
> > When such a counter-argument is made by means of bringing up some
fact,
> > not about the original argument itself, but about the person making
it,
> > the counter-argument attacks the person. For such an argument to be
> > fallacious is for the facts mentioned about the person not to be
> > relevant to evaluating the person's claim or argument. Such an
argument
> > is not fallacious when the facts about the person genuinely *are*
> > relevant to evaluating the person's claim or argument.
>
> This is pretty much exactly the definition of ad hominem I was
taught.

I must admit, this is much further than I would have gone. I have
never considered mere insults to be ad hominem fallacies ("by means of
bringing up some fact") -- I always presumed you needed to actually use
the facts *as a way to divert attention from the argument*. Doesn't
the above imply that Bradd's position (an insult is an ad hominem
attack) is correct?