What is an Ad-hom (from a Stimpson exchange)

[Christian]

This is the pertinent portion of an exchange between Stimpson and myself about the the fallacy of Ad-hom.


Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

No, your arguments demonstrate you to be arrogant. And again, it is neither hyperbole, nor ad-hom, because I am attacking your argument, not you. If I say "Your arguments are all false because you are arrogant", then that is the fallacy of ad-hom. If I say "your argument demonstrates an extraordinary arrogance on your part, and is false because of XYZ", then that is not the fallacy of ad-hom. It is an argument, along with the observation that your on argument makes you come across as being very arrogant.


originally posted by Christian
Ah, so it is just commentary (like a footnote), completely unrelated to why my statement is false. Looks exactly like an ad-hom. IT IS AN AD-HOM.

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
You clearly do not know what an ad-hom is. If, for example, I say that your use of language is confusing, without in any way implying that this discredits your arguments, then that is simply a criticism, not an ad-hom. The fact that I think your position indicates a great deal of arrogance on your part, is a criticism. It has nothing to do with the soundness, or lack thereof, of your arguments. If you wish to take that criticism as an insult, rather than as an attempt to point out something which you may not have been aware of, as it was intended, then that is your choice. An ad-hom is a logical fallacy. I have made no such fallacy in my arguments.


I sure I'm right and he is sure he is.

I'm interested in the philosophical discussion of why it is so hard for people to accept when they are wrong.


And is it harder for intelligent people to accept they are wrong? The more the intelligence the harder it is to accept? Is that the irony of life? [We learn mostly by accepting our mistakes, falsification]

Note: It might turn out that Stimpson is 100% and I'm wrong. [which would be even more ironic.] That's not the important part.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Christian
This is the pertinent portion of an exchange between Stimpson and myself about the the fallacy of Ad-hom.





I sure I'm right and he is sure he is.

I'm interested in the philosophical discussion of why it is so hard for people to accept when they are wrong.


And is it harder for intelligent people to accept they are wrong? The more the intelligence the harder it is to accept? Is that the irony of life? [We learn mostly by accepting our mistakes, falsification]

Note: It might turn out that Stimpson is 100% and I'm wrong. [which would be even more ironic.] That's not the important part.

I think he's right but I could be convinced otherwise if someone insults me enough. Just kidding. He's right, I'm pretty sure. Why won't people accept that they are wrong? Who says they don't?

A better question is, why won't people admit that they are wrong? Some do. I do sometimes if the topic is of little import to me. The greater the import, the less likely I am to admit I'm mistaken. I grasp at straws, any straws, that I may yet be proven correct, or that someone may change the subject enough to get me out of the confession.

Why?

Because it hurts to know that something in which you are vested is worthless. Admitting the truth doesn't make it hurt less, it makes it hurt more. Well, at least it does close to the event. Eventually you get over it and move on. Possibly you'll even make light of it in the more-distant future.

[evildave]

Maybe the cited example has a little bit of Poisoning the Well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Christian
This is the pertinent portion of an exchange between Stimpson and myself about the the fallacy of Ad-hom.





I sure I'm right and he is sure he is.

I'm interested in the philosophical discussion of why it is so hard for people to accept when they are wrong.


And is it harder for intelligent people to accept they are wrong? The more the intelligence the harder it is to accept? Is that the irony of life? [We learn mostly by accepting our mistakes, falsification]

Note: It might turn out that Stimpson is 100% and I'm wrong. [which would be even more ironic.] That's not the important part.

Christian,

Ad hom has two different meanings. One basically means an insult. The other is the fallacy of ad hom. You are confusing the two meanings.

[Polux]

Originally posted by Christian

I sure I'm right and he is sure he is.

I'm interested in the philosophical discussion of why it is so hard for people to accept when they are wrong.


And is it harder for intelligent people to accept they are wrong? The more the intelligence the harder it is to accept? Is that the irony of life? [We learn mostly by accepting our mistakes, falsification]

Note: It might turn out that Stimpson is 100% and I'm wrong. [which would be even more ironic.] That's not the important part.

1. Yes, Stimpson is right about ad-hom.
2. Well, it sucks to be wrong, especially in a heated debate. Doesn't it? I've recently accepted to be wrong in a debate with defenders of homeopathy: they were talking about some homeopathic "medicine" in the form of little balls or a powder. I said that couldn't be homeopathy since that should be something overdiluted in water. I was enlightened on how something that is liquid can be presented in other formats. That sucked! But I didn't get an acknowledgment from them about homeopathy being useless crap. So I believe I'm still right on the main discussion.

[Yahweh]

From Atheism Logic and Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem):
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

<blockquote>"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."</blockquote>

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

<blockquote>"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."</blockquote>

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

<blockquote>"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."</blockquote>

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

<blockquote>"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."</blockquote>

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

Essentially, an ad hom means that you do not attack an argument, but instead try to show the argument unsound by pointing out flaws in the character of the person who is making it.

A statement such as "Because he is young and lives with his parents, I can ignore his advice about politics (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870511478&highlight=definition#post1870511478)" is an excellent example of an ad hominem argument. Another example of ad hominem would be "How on earth could Rachel - a Christian - comment intelligently on evolution?".

[Brian the Snail]

As others have already indicated, Stimpson is 100% correct.

I'm interested in the philosophical discussion of why it is so hard for people to accept when they are wrong.

Because they're arrogant?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]From Atheism Logic and Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem):


Essentially, an ad hom means that you do not attack an argument, but instead try to show the argument unsound by pointing out flaws in the character of the person who is making it.

You mean, like someone saying, "that statement is very arrogant of you"? :wink:

[Christian]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Because it hurts to know that something in which you are vested is worthless. Admitting the truth doesn't make it hurt less, it makes it hurt more. Well, at least it does close to the event. Eventually you get over it and move on. Possibly you'll even make light of it in the more-distant future.

It makes sense that more one has invested in a position, the less one will abandon it.

[Christian]

Originally posted by evildave
Maybe the cited example has a little bit of Poisoning the Well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html).


Would poisoning the well be a kind of ad-hom? Attack the person, but way before.


To me, the requirement to be guilty of the fallacy of ad-hom is simply to attack the person instead of the argument, in any form. There is simply no reason to make comments of the person, if the attack must be on the argument.

If you guys are right then none of the following would be ad-homs.

-You are stupid. Oh, and you statement is false because so and so.
-You are a retard. Oh, and your statement is incorrect because this and this.

The first sentence *implies* that this quality of the statement made by the person is less because of it. If not the case, why would anyone make it.

I think it is simply legalistic to say that since the insult or commentary is not directly linked to the statement or argument by a connector, it is not an ad-hom.

[evildave]

"Poisoning the Well" is the same basic kind of 'crime' as "Ad Hominem", with the same intention, under a different label.

Like degrees of murder. Someone's still harmed by your hand however it's eventually labeled.

There's always a way to lawyer around a definition.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Christian,

Would poisoning the well be a kind of ad-hom? Attack the person, but way before.

To me, the requirement to be guilty of the fallacy of ad-hom is simply to attack the person instead of the argument, in any form. There is simply no reason to make comments of the person, if the attack must be on the argument.

First of all, I did not attack you at all, much less attack you instead of your arguments. Telling somebody that their statements make them come across as being arrogant, or that their position indicates arrogance on their part, is neither an attack, nor an insult. It is criticism, and in this case, criticism which I felt to be quite relevant to the discussion at hand, because I think that the fact that you do not recognize the arrogance implied by your position and statements, is very indicative of the flaw in your entire line of reasoning.

If you guys are right then none of the following would be ad-homs.

-You are stupid. Oh, and you statement is false because so and so.
-You are a retard. Oh, and your statement is incorrect because this and this.

They are not ad-hominems. Nor are they criticisms. They are simply insults, followed by arguments. Note that when you talk about the fallacy of ad-hominem, the key word there is "fallacy". If there is no logical flaw involved, then it is not a fallacy, regardless of how rude, irrelevant, or insulting it may be.

The first sentence *implies* that this quality of the statement made by the person is less because of it. If not the case, why would anyone make it.

It implies no such thing. If the person were to re-phrase the statement in such a way that it did, for example, "Your statement is false because you are stupid", then it would be an ad-hom. As to why anyone would make such a statement, there are all sorts of reasons. To be mean. To provoke a reaction. To try to get the other person to quit talking to them. There are all sorts of possibilities. But again, I did not insult you. There is a difference between insult and criticism.

I think it is simply legalistic to say that since the insult or commentary is not directly linked to the statement or argument by a connector, it is not an ad-hom.

Like I said before, if you want an example of the ad-hominem fallacy in this discussion, take a look at your own writing.

I said:
None of us have any idea who the best possible mate for us is. Theoretically, that could be determined scientifically, but practically it is impossible. If you believe that your choice to marry the person you did was based on the knowledge that they were the best possible mate for you, then you are just deluding yourself. The fact that you love that person, and that you wanted to marry them, are not things which you chose. You guessed, based on the incomplete information you had available. Just as we all do.

To which you replied:
I know you really believe this because that takes away all the responsibility of the choice.

That is a perfect example of the ad-hominem fallacy. I responded to your question in a detailed and clear way. But rather than respond to my argument, you tried to discredit it by attacking my motives for believing it. This is an ad-hominem fallacy because you not only attacked me, but did so in an attempt to discredit my argument, which is a logical fallacy since even if you are right, and my reasons for believing it are irrational and irresponsible, that has absolutely no relevance to the validity of the argument.

You have been going on and on about be "ad-homming" you, but the fact of the matter is that, of the two of us, the only one guilty of the ad-hominem fallacy here is you.


Dr. Stupid

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Essentially, an ad hom means that you do not attack an argument, but instead try to show the argument unsound by pointing out flaws in the character of the person who is making it.

Originally posted by Christian
You mean, like someone saying, "that statement is very arrogant of you"? :wink:
That depends, is your argument unsound because you are arrogant?

If some discredits what you have to say because you are arrogant, rather than deal with the arguments directly, it is indeed an ad hom. Example: "Atheists are too arrogant to know anything about the bible" is an ad hom; "Billy the Atheist said Romans is part of the Old Testament, which anyone who flips through a bible can see is clearly wrong. How arrogant of Billy" is not an ad hom, just an insult.

[jan]

That is a perfect example of the ad-hominem fallacy. I responded to your question in a detailed and clear way. But rather than respond to my argument, you tried to discredit it by attacking my motives for believing it.

I encountered an even narrower definition of ad-hom. This definition requires that the attack is not directed to the reputation of the person and also not to the motives of the person, but to the consistency of the different claims of the person. Some examples:

"X says we should spent more money on home defense. But we all know that X is a moron who can neither read nor write."

A personal attack, but not an ad-hom in the strict sense.

"X says we should spent more money on home defense. But we all know that X has many friends in the military industry."

This puts X's motives in a very dubious light. And it is a fallacy, since it could be possible that X has many friends in the military industry, but this doesn't refute his arguments (if he has any). But I would still hesitate to call that an "ad hom".

"X says we should spent more money on home defense. But on the other hand, X says that we should reduce the size of the government in every respect."

X claims A, and X also claims B, and it can be shown that it is possible to deduce &not;A from B. Therefore, A and B can't be both correct, and at least one of X's claims are false. But that still doesn't prove that A is false: it is also possible that B is the false claim. Maybe X is wrong in claiming that we should reduce the size of the government, but nevertheless right with his views on home defense. So pointing to X's view on the optimal size of the government doesn't refute his views on the optimal amount of money spent for home defense, and any attempt to construct such a refutation would be a fallacy. A fallacy called "ad hominem", because it only works for X: if Y claims A and &not;B, it is not possible to use this defective reasoning to try to refute A.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

First of all, I did not attack you at all, much less attack you instead of your arguments. Telling somebody that their statements make them come across as being arrogant, or that their position indicates arrogance on their part, is neither an attack, nor an insult. It is criticism, and in this case, criticism which I felt to be quite relevant to the discussion at hand, because I think that the fact that you do not recognize the arrogance implied by your position and statements, is very indicative of the flaw in your entire line of reasoning.

Stimpson, I'm sorrry. I just feel this whole line of reasoning is just justification of your comment.


They are not ad-hominems. Nor are they criticisms. They are simply insults, followed by arguments. Note that when you talk about the fallacy of ad-hominem, the key word there is "fallacy". If there is no logical flaw involved, then it is not a fallacy, regardless of how rude, irrelevant, or insulting it may be.

I now see exactly why you insist that it is not an ad-hom. I simply don't agree with the strict mathematical like quality that the statement must have to be an ad-hom. To me, (thinking like a lawyer) intent is as powerful as the strict construction of the statement.


It implies no such thing. If the person were to re-phrase the statement in such a way that it did, for example, "Your statement is false because you are stupid", then it would be an ad-hom. As to why anyone would make such a statement, there are all sorts of reasons. To be mean. To provoke a reaction. To try to get the other person to quit talking to them. There are all sorts of possibilities. But again, I did not insult you. There is a difference between insult and criticism.

You are making the distinctions and to me, intent is a matter of appreciation. The re-phrasing makes the intent clear. And I believe an ad-hom was your intent. You vehemently deny this, but I still think that applying "the Oc razon" ad-hom is the simplest explanation. That is the simplest explanation for the "criticism."

It is a perfect example of the ad-hominem fallacy. I responded to your question in a detailed and clear way. But rather than respond to my argument, you tried to discredit it by attacking my motives for believing it. This is an ad-hominem fallacy because you not only attacked me, but did so in an attempt to discredit my argument, which is a logical fallacy since even if you are right, and my reasons for believing it are irrational and irresponsible, that has absolutely no relevance to the validity of the argument.


Are you kidding me. You can tell me that if I believe that I made the choice I'm deluding myself and that is ok, but if I tell you are taking away your responsibility of choice, that is an ad-hom?


You have been going on and on about be "ad-homming" you, but the fact of the matter is that, of the two of us, the only one guilty of the ad-hominem fallacy here is you.


Ok, let's disect this statement. Explain to me why you use phrases like You have been going on and on

Aren't those phrase loaded? What is the intent. Sure you can cloak them in legalistic and formalities, to me they don't mask the obvious.

[SezMe]

I think evildave has an important point. Legally, the statement, "Your argument makes you sound arrogant and your arguement is wrong because of XYZ" is not ad hom. But I think it is too easy to say it doesn't poison the well - especially if the topic is sensitive like emotions or religion.

Practically, I think separating the statements makes the dialog cleaner. Something like:

"Your arguement is wrong because of XYZ"
, blah, blah, blah

"And your argument indicates to me that you are arrogant."

Edited for sloppy typing

[evildave]

Yes, seperating the argument from the editorialising may make a difference....

On a writing style side note....

On a forum guidelines side note....

On an editorial side note....

[ Grammarian mode ]...[ /Grammarian mode ]

Although there's always the semi-unique Doctor X "I'm not schizo, and neither am I!" technique of inserting [Stop that! -Ed] statements into your text.

Lots of ways to get your point across without getting personal, including not bothering to get personal. This is my personal favorite method. You don't often see me calling people names and telling them they're ugly and their mother dresses them funny.

Make fun of their idols and heroes, maybe...

New Topic: Gods, Heroes, Idols (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45326)

[Christian]

Originally posted by RSSchlueter
I think evildave has an important point. Legally, the statement, "Your argument makes you sound arrogant and your arguement is wrong because of XYZ" is not ad hom. But I think it is too easy to say it doesn't poison the well - especially if the topic is sensitive like emotions or religion.

Practically, I think separating the statements makes the dialog cleaner. Something like:

"Your arguement is wrong because of XYZ"
, blah, blah, blah

"And your argument indicates to me that you are arrogant."

Edited for sloppy typing


I agree with your three points.

[Christian]

Originally posted by evildave
Yes, seperating the argument from the editorialising may make a difference....

On a writing style side note....

On a forum guidelines side note....

On an editorial side note....

[ Grammarian mode ]...[ /Grammarian mode ]

Although there's always the semi-unique Doctor X "I'm not schizo, and neither am I!" technique of inserting [Stop that! -Ed] statements into your text.

Lots of ways to get your point across without getting personal, including not bothering to get personal. This is my personal favorite method. You don't often see me calling people names and telling them they're ugly and their mother dresses them funny.

Make fun of their idols and heroes, maybe...

New Topic: Gods, Heroes, Idols (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45326)


You know what is funny? I are one of the most biting person on the board about religious topics. And you are such a nice, genuine, generous person.

I have come to respect you for both.

[evildave]

Aww, shucks.

[Atlas]

I would echo the distinctions made earlier by Stimpy that Criticism, Insult and ad hom Fallacy can easily be confused by a sensitive reader, except that his avatar is so stupid looking, and "Stimpy" sounds too much like "Stinky", and I especially agree with evildave that Stimpy's mom dresses him funny.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Christian,

First of all, I did not attack you at all, much less attack you instead of your arguments. Telling somebody that their statements make them come across as being arrogant, or that their position indicates arrogance on their part, is neither an attack, nor an insult. It is criticism, and in this case, criticism which I felt to be quite relevant to the discussion at hand, because I think that the fact that you do not recognize the arrogance implied by your position and statements, is very indicative of the flaw in your entire line of reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimpson, I'm sorrry. I just feel this whole line of reasoning is just justification of your comment.

Well, I am sorry you feel that way, but you are wrong. There is not much more I can do than explain what my intentions were. You can either accept that explanation, or not.

They are not ad-hominems. Nor are they criticisms. They are simply insults, followed by arguments. Note that when you talk about the fallacy of ad-hominem, the key word there is "fallacy". If there is no logical flaw involved, then it is not a fallacy, regardless of how rude, irrelevant, or insulting it may be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I now see exactly why you insist that it is not an ad-hom. I simply don't agree with the strict mathematical like quality that the statement must have to be an ad-hom.

Do you agree that in order to be considered a fallacy at all, there must be a logical flaw involved?

To me, (thinking like a lawyer) intent is as powerful as the strict construction of the statement.

You can only guess what my intentions were. You guessed wrong. You can either accept my explanation of what my intentions were, or you can assume that I am lying. The choice is yours.

It implies no such thing. If the person were to re-phrase the statement in such a way that it did, for example, "Your statement is false because you are stupid", then it would be an ad-hom. As to why anyone would make such a statement, there are all sorts of reasons. To be mean. To provoke a reaction. To try to get the other person to quit talking to them. There are all sorts of possibilities. But again, I did not insult you. There is a difference between insult and criticism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are making the distinctions and to me, intent is a matter of appreciation. The re-phrasing makes the intent clear. And I believe an ad-hom was your intent. You vehemently deny this, but I still think that applying "the Oc razon" ad-hom is the simplest explanation. That is the simplest explanation for the "criticism."

OK, so you believe that I am lying about my intentions. That's fine. But I am not going to take responsibility for what you think I meant, especially after I have gone to the trouble to clarify my intent to you.

It is a perfect example of the ad-hominem fallacy. I responded to your question in a detailed and clear way. But rather than respond to my argument, you tried to discredit it by attacking my motives for believing it. This is an ad-hominem fallacy because you not only attacked me, but did so in an attempt to discredit my argument, which is a logical fallacy since even if you are right, and my reasons for believing it are irrational and irresponsible, that has absolutely no relevance to the validity of the argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you kidding me. You can tell me that if I believe that I made the choice I'm deluding myself and that is ok, but if I tell you are taking away your responsibility of choice, that is an ad-hom?

No, what makes your statement an ad-hom, and not mine, is the fact that you simply dismissed my entire argument by stating that my reasons for believing it were irresponsible. That is both an attack on me rather than on my argument, and a logical fallacy, since the validity of my argument does not depend on my reasons for believing it. On the other hand, I did not simply dismiss any of your arguments by saying that you are deluding yourself. I presented arguments for why I think that who a person loves is not a choice that person makes. My conclusion that you are deluding yourself was not an argument, nor an attempt to discredit or dismiss any of your arguments. It was a conclusion drawn from my own arguments.

You have been going on and on about be "ad-homming" you, but the fact of the matter is that, of the two of us, the only one guilty of the ad-hominem fallacy here is you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok, let's disect this statement. Explain to me why you use phrases like You have been going on and on

Because you have?

Aren't those phrase loaded? What is the intent. Sure you can cloak them in legalistic and formalities, to me they don't mask the obvious.

The intent should be pretty clear. I think that you have been spending a lot of time focusing on what you have perceived to be some sort of insult, rather than on the actual issue being discussed, and that it is ironic that you have been spending so much time accusing me of making ad-hom fallacies, when in fact you are the one who has done so.


Dr. Stupid

[Dylab]

It seems to me that Christian is critising Stimpy's debating Techniques. Fallacies (in my understanding) are soley about reasoning. You shouldn't just point a falacy in someones post. You should point out how someone reached there conclusion in their argument by using that fallacy. If you can't do that then I don't see how it is fallacy. It still might be a bad debating style but it isn't a fallacy.

Christian: Can you show how Stimpy used an ad-hom to reason his conclusion.

[Q-Source]

Stimpson,

You usually avoid adhoms, but in this case I think Christian is right.

For example, you said:

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Christian,

First of all, I did not attack you at all, much less attack you instead of your arguments. Telling somebody that their statements make them come across as being arrogant, or that their position indicates arrogance on their part, is neither an attack, nor an insult. It is criticism...



For whatever reason you want (which is subjective) you are telling him that he is arrogant, even if you think it is only criticism, you are attacking the man (by calling him an arrongant) and not attacking the argument . THere is absolutely no point in calling anyone "arrogant" in order to trash an argument. Only logic and reason can defeat your opponent, so you were using an ad-hom.

Of course I also think that you shouldn't be accused of using ad-homs as an strategic to win an argument because this case is the exception and not the rule.


Q

[Atlas]

Before joining this forum I would not have known an ad hom attack if it bit me. And I'm sure I've been silenced in the past without knowing this ploy had been used effectively against me.

I really appreciate threads such as these for bringing the technique out for discussion. However in this discussion something is missing. We are talking about 2 things really. Yahweh, jan, and evildave have produced examples of types of ad hom to be alert for. But I like RSSchlueter's comment... I think evildave has an important point. Legally, the statement, "Your argument makes you sound arrogant and your arguement is wrong because of XYZ" is not ad hom. But I think it is too easy to say it doesn't poison the well - especially if the topic is sensitive like emotions or religion.
I think we all detect certain tonalities in one anothers posts. Sometimes they bother us to the point that we comment on them as Stimson did about the perceived arrogance of Christian. And that, of course is the 2nd thing we are talking about. We are not given a link to the original discussion to ascertain for ourselves whether Christian's leadup was arrogant or whether the relevant section he posts to open this thread was the totality of Stimpson's argument.

For me, that is secondary anyway. The question for me has always been what to do next. If someone calls your position arrogant or when someone accuses you of an ad hom attack what is the best way to respond?

I like the replies to start out, "OK, it's possible that my post came across that way - I didn't mean it that way. Let me try again to make my points and this time I'll try to do so more calmly."

Unfortunately we cannot easily change our spots. If we are arrogant or if we must be right at all costs the conversation degenerates quickly. And my preferred reply can be taken as weakness by someone who is intent on ripping someone up.

Alternatively, I like starting a new thread to get the community's input. Especially when it relates directly to an exposition of one of the many fallacies. I prefer to discuss them with examples in their own threads - like this one - than to fling them in unrelated threads that derail good discussions.

So Christian that is a point for you. I still don't feel that your case is made. Part of this would certainly be whether you believe you may have come across arrogantly. If you have, and you can see it yourself, then Stimpson was saying no more than was evident to all.

If you were clear and calm in your leadup and your point is that Stimpson is not being honest in his assessment that you were arrogant then your argument is stronger. If you were not trying to be arrogant but you see now that you were then, of course, you'd want to thank Stimpson for setting you straight - your argumentation will only improve.

If your point was that the only thing that Stimpson said was that you are arrogant and because of that your argument has no merit because of your arrogance then you are correct in arguing that he has engaged in an ad hom attack. I'm not getting that from him. He seems to have tried to describe where he was coming from. I surely think we must expect others to tell us how we are coming across in our posts. I don't think we like hearing the bad side but we often have the option to take some of the comments as constructive criticism (whether they are offered in that vein or not.)

Ok, I'm more of a conversationalist than a debater and I think the rules are different. I generally have an opinion going in to every thread I engage in but I like the stimulating discussions because of what I can learn. I too, hate being attacked, but it does sharpen and shape the discussion.

Just to be clear, I don't think describing someone's tone is an ad hom attack if there is more behind it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Q-Source
THere is absolutely no point in calling anyone "arrogant" in order to trash an argument. Q

Interesting.

You know what Tricky?, I don't have a very nice reputation in this
forum. The reason why is because when I read typical arrogant comments like yours, I suddenly become an anti-USA b*tch .

Interesting. Recognize the quote, Q-Source?