I want to get a few opinions on this logical fallacy.
I don't think it is always a fallacy, because, yes, you should attack an argument or opinion, but in the end, a person came up with, or just uses, that argument or opinion and a personal attack doesn't seem so bad anymore, because, if an argument is attacked, isn't the person that used it attacked as well, even if only because he used that argument, and even if in a less direct manner?
And sometimes a person's conduct, or motives matter in a discussion and it changes their argument(s) or view on the situation - for example, hypocrisy - pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
So, are personal attacks understandable at any point in a conversation? What do the staff members of this forum think, since "Personal attacks are not allowed under any circumstance." (Guidelines)
Sometimes a personal attack is warrented and the only way to get one's message or point across.
Yes, that is how i see it too.
"The first one to throw stones,
is the first one to run out of ideas."
(and isn't calling another person names simply verbal stone throwing?)
forgot who said that quote.
Ahtough, i can't ride too high of a horse on this matter, because I am guilty once, of having called a person online racist, but he ASKED me if he was racist. Still, i went too far, and did apologize, and did feel badly about 'losing it'. We all have our sacred cows, i guess. I still felt very much i was correct in my disagreement with his every remark, but, i was ashamed i'd sunk to grade school level of 'debate' by just calling names.
For some of us, our own personal sacred cow, could be this topic, or that topic.
When the topic being discussed is not one of your own personal sacred cows, it might be hard to understand why PersonB is losing it, yet, on another topic, you might find yourself close to losing it, feeling heated inside, too!
but, other than my one messup, i strongly agree with Adriana and Michel, the one calling the other person names, is saying far more about themselves than the other person.
Here's what Wiki has to say:
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it. The ad hominemis normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
So yes - in a formal debate I suppose it would be allowed, but how often does one engage in a formal debate online?
The logical fallacy part is if you use the ad hominem, as Wiki says, to discredit the veracity of an idea or fact by discrediting the character of the person proposing the idea. For example, a specific creationist may indeed be a hopeless nincompoop, but this is not the reason why creationism is NOT true; creationism is not true because there is no evidence for it and there are tons for common descent and evolution. In other words, one must debate the idea and not the person.
Of course if a person espouses and idea and then does the opposite, like for example, right-wing married, "family men" politicians with a holier-than-thou agenda who then are found with prostitutes, then their character can be attacked because their attitude is hypocritical. So in this case character would be relevant to the issue.
I guess you can win an argument or a debate by attacking the creationist, but I don't see any satisfaction in winning like that; not that I see debates as another way to show your muscles. But if you really want to win, do it, like you've said, by showing the creationist, and everyone else, the lack of evidence.
Nincompoop... that word is so funny. :)
When you attack an argument, you are indirectly attacking the person that supports the thought.
Is that not good enough? Or would we rather sit around calling each other bitches all day?
Or would we rather sit around calling each other bitches all day?
Come to think of it, Ning's limited nesting isn't so bad after all.