Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>> MSB *does* *not* assassinate character in order to impugn arguments.
Bradd wrote:
>> Irrelevant.
> Very relevant. *That's where the fallacy comes from*.
Incorrect. The informal fallacies apply both when the speaker commits an
error in reasoning and when the speaker leads others to commit errors in
reasoning. You often gloat about the latter. Laying a trap for your
opponent like that is a fallacy just as much as using the irrelevant
claims to support your argument.
The only time an irrelevant, prejudicial remark is /not/ a fallacy is
when all parties are aware of the logical irrelevance and recognize that
its value is purely psychological. It's not too unusual to see a speaker
argue thus: "If you're having trouble accepting my reasons, consider
this ...." The idea here is that you offer psychological reasons to
overcome the other side's biases, to make your argument both logical and
psychologically palatable. That's why pure rhetoric isn't always a
fallacy. However, if you disguise the psychological "argument" as a
logical argument, or if you use it to distract or bait your opponent,
you've committed a fallacy or laid a trap for your opponent to commit
one, and that's a bad argument.
> Repeating *yourself* about *nonexistent* genetive fallacies doesn't
> make the charge valid .... Comments on why courtrooms are
> inappropriate places for personal attacks are *irrelevant*. This is
> not a courtroom.
If you read legal sources, including those I've already quoted, you'll
see attorneys, judges, and bar associations condemning ad hominem
remarks because they generally are unpersuasive, hostile, prejudicial,
foolish, and sanctionable. If you read critical-thinking textbooks,
you'll see them condemn ad hominem fallacy because it generally is
illogical, hostile, foolish, and provocative. The only substantial
difference between the two is that lawyers can get fined or disbarred
for committing the fallacy.
You have repeatedly claimed that courtrooms are different, but you have
not established that the difference is substantial or relevant. Until
you do, you are guilty of the genitive fallacy.
> The only point of intersection between here and there in your cite is
> on the un-persuasiveness of personal attacks ....
Untrue. You personally believe that respect and reputation are
irrelevant on Usenet. However, your belief is far from universal, and
furthermore it's irrelevant to the definition of ad hominem fallacy --
unless you're advocating a different definition for Usenet.
The only place where the legal guidelines differ from general usage is
that lawyers can get in professional trouble for committing ad hominem
fallacies.
>>>> Our local logic expert, Jeff Heikkinen confirmed that your
>>>> definition is not the only one in wide use.
> Tsk. "Wide use" is the cheater word, Bradd. There is a very specific
> context for that alternate perspective which *is* *not* *ours*.
What specific context? My encyclopedic sources agreed with the legal
sources. That's not a "very specific context." It looks like you're
trying to pigeonhole the legal sources, with no basis in fact.
> The fact that institutions interested in *unentertaining* and sterile
> debates consider personal attacks inappropriate distractions from
> their work and therefore poor *quality* arguments has no bearing on
> whether or not mockery is actually representative of bad thinking.
So you are advocating a different definition for Usenet?
>> Unfortunately for you, since you don't study logic or rhetoric, you
>> missed the whole part where philosophers, lawyers, and just about all
>> practitioners of critical thinking put your debate tactics in the
>> "bad argument" file. They call them "fallacies" for exactly the same
>> reason they call illogical arguments fallacies -- they add nothing
>> but misinformation.
> Incorrect, Braddie boy. They call slightly different debate tactics
> "bad arguments" ....
No, they all agree on that. They only differ in the consequences:
Lawyers can suffer professional sanctions; amateur philosophers cannot.
> ... all of your assumptions ignore ENTERTAINMENT VALUE as a motivation
> for behaviour.
An entertaining bad argument is still a bad argument.
>>> You're actually stuck insisting that suggesting we killfile someone
>>> for their sins is ad hominem fallacy!
>> Not only is it ad hominem fallacy, it's a very commonly-cited form of it.
> NO IT IS *NOT*. Your claim on this point is a blatant case of
> equivocation fallacy, as has already been explained to you --
Repeating this still doesn't make it true.
Go ahead, declare victory by fiat again.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram