http://forbiddentruth.8k.com/childabuse.html
Would this also be considered non sequitur
I mean the recent link I posted has him trying to advocate some batshit child policy. I can’t even make sense of it.
Then stop reading them. Especially stop telling us about them.
You should never feel obligated to read nonsense. Stop now, say to yourself “well, that was an interesting glimpse into the mind of a madman,” and move on to more entertaining hobbies.
But it’s like some morbid curiosity, and some feeling that there might be truth.
Although advocating a test to become a parent as well as mandatory child inspection every year (to prevent his version of “child abuse”). Not to mention giving children at the age of 8 the chance to leave their caregivers if they choose
The logical fallacy that something must be a logical fallacy to be wrong deserves a name, too. Argumentum ad fallacia is it?
A few bits short of a byte
Played too much without a helmet
Due a brain-tax rebate
Kangaroo loose in the top paddock
One nipple short of an udder
A few waves short of a shipwreck
Strong like bear, smart like rock
The wheel is still spinning but the hamster is dead
A few Freedom Fries short of a Happy Meal
The village want him back
Takes him two hours to watch 60 minutes
His biscuits ain’t quite done, bless his heart
Cheese done slipped off his cracker
The lights are flashing but there’s no train coming
From the shallow end of the gene pool
A few Bradys short of a bunch
A few French fries shy of a Happy Meal. A couple sandwiches short of a picnic.
As Exapno Mapcase it means he’s crazy.
It’s not a logical fallacy, just a refusal to debate. It might be true, but it would have to be demonstrated before it would be valid.
It would IMO be valid to say to the author of the article to which you linked “you are too crazy to debate”, and again IMO it would be a valid objection, based on my examination of the said article. But as mentioned, the author would never accept it as valid.
I certainly understand the first part about morbid curiosity. After all, I’m a Doper, and I love a good Holocaust denial or 911 Truther or moon landing hoax thread. But that is mostly to see my fellow Dopers and their hard-headed mix of scientific reasoning and entertaining snark that makes those threads a delight.
And there might be truth buried in even the most bizarre ravings. Is it worth the effort of trying to pick it out? Decide for yourself - if you decide it isn’t, don’t bother.
For instance, the child abuse one you also linked to? Too long as well as too weird. A little of that kind of thing can be entertaining, a lot is creepy. It is not so much a non sequitur - just a long rant of unsubstantiated nonsense.
Regards,
Shodan
The logical fallacy to which the Forbidden Truth guy is subject is ucking-fay uts-nay.
Regards,
Shodan
Start a blog.
Yeah, it just seems like nonsense really.
What would that accomplish?
Also what about that stuff about the children?
For one thing, you’re in General Questions, for questions with factual answers. It is not the place to discuss crazy Internet sites no matter what the subject. You seem to have no interest in discussing the sites either, just bringing them to our attention. The best place to do that is your own blog.
It is not “only true in a very etymological sense”. It is literally true. The term ad is a preposition (i.e. to, about, etc.) and hominem is a reference to a person. Hence, it literally means to or about a person. While it’s true people often use this as an abbreviation for argumentum ad hominem (i.e. argument about a person), this does not change the fact that any label applied to a person is ad hominem. This is not necessarily a negative thing. Suppose someone writes limericks. If you call that person a poet, you are literally speaking ad hominem (i.e. to or about the person).
You should decouple the concept of applying labels from insults. The application of labels is not necessarily scornful or abusive. Also, I did not say “calling someone names is a non sequitur”. In the examples cited above (e.g. crazy person), that would have been the case due to a lack of sufficient premises. However, when such labels are applied in a manner where the argument is both coherent and sound, there can be no logical objection. Note the scenario I used in post #13. If Ann actually called Bob a bigot, yes that would be ad hominem but it would be both coherent and sound because Bob is, in fact, a bigot and that can be conclusively proven because his expression clearly meets the lexical definition of bigotry. However, in debate, I find it is usually more effective to eviscerate ideation rather than people.
This term has been “formally-defined” by english dictionaries for 300 years, at least since Nathan Bailey’s 1721 effort.
If you aren’t stating premises to support your conclusion, you’ll be running into another logical fallacy: burden of proof (e.g. proof by assertion). Hence, any way you look at it, this is going to be logically fallacious. It is also a logical fallacy if you fail to consider other possible explanations. Suppose the person is merely playing devil’s advocate or is just having fun by posting outrageous things. You have no means to determine whether any of that is the case. While you can certainly assault the coherence and soundness of these posts, the posts themselves do not prove someone is mentally deranged. Note the difference between determining whether someone is a bigot and whether they are crazy. A bigot is merely a person who expresses bigotry. Hence, the mere expression is the only evidence which is required to make this determination. In contrast, a crazy person is someone who is mentally deranged. You require some means to examine the internal operations of that person’s mind in order to determine whether he is, in fact, crazy. Short of an extensive body of evidence or a direct face-to-face evaluation, this will be very difficult to prove.
I think this depends greatly on the extent of the writings and whether you have other sources of evidence which speak to the matter. A couple of posts on a blog can hardly be deemed sufficient to draw such a conclusion.
You have access to far more evidence when the person is directly observable. In particular, you can try to speak to the person and see if he can be reasoned with. Drawing a conclusion that someone is crazy is far more likely to be a reasonable conclusion if you can interface with the person face-to-face.
Actually, the composition of the argumentum ad hominem does, in fact, hinge on whether you’re “targeting the author’s words as opposed to the author himself.” Indeed, the term argumentum ad hominem directly translates to argument about a person as opposed to argument about ideation.
While I’m aware of how some people talk but I can talk too.
I am attempting to discuss them, to the best of my ability
You are spelling out your mistaken belief in the etymological fallacy.
The literal translation or ancient meaning is not the current meaning.
Transpire
Literal translation = to breathe across
Current meaning = to happen
Ad hoc
Literal translation = for this
Current meaning = improvised, for a particular purpose only
Ad hominem
Literal translation = against or about the person
Current meaning = specifically, irrelevant denigration of a person in order to discredit their ideas
What if the person refuses to debate?
Then you wipe the dust of that website from your feet and move on. Life is too short to waste it talking to a brick wall, despite the current example.
You don’t think so? This is not a matter of universal intersubjective agreement. See the Oxford Dictionary of U.S. English, which offers the following definition:
Hence, my claims are objectively well-founded.
Read that dictionary more carefully. It does, as you say, mention another semi-archaic usage (one that you will notice is not mentioned in other dictionaries):
However, that semi-archaic usage had another narrow and highly specific meaning, similar to ad hoc. For example, a CEO wishes to involve a particular talented person Mr Jones in the running of her company, but no suitable position currently exists. She therefore creates a new position specifically for Mr Jones, say “Strategic Opportunity Consultant”, on an ad hoc basis. One might then have said (when that semi-archaic usage was current): “The position of Strategic Opportunity Consultant was created ad hominem for Mr Jones.”
In any event, it’s quite clear that, in the context of this thread, nobody intended this other semi-archaic meeting.
If you really think that ad hominem can mean “to a person” in a general sense then show me examples in the current corpus of it being used that general way. There are none, because when speaking English we don’t just intersperse random Latin words as alternatives to English words to mean exactly the same thing as the English words.