Ad hominems, etc. should be legit

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lincoln
A "blind atheist" is one who cannot see the obvious evidence that points to a creator. Kind of like a wasp behind a glass barrier who cannot understand that what he sees is not what he gets.

There is no evidence for a creator. None what so ever. So please stop kidding yourself. In fact the two books in my signature are evidence against the creator. The creator is non-existent as there is no evidence for one.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Immortal:

whats the difference? one's arguement sucks because one sucks... one sucks because his arguement sucks... whats the difference? At best you can say there is a correlative relation... causality is an illusion.

That's a good point. It does seem to be true that some of us are capable of twisting the most obvious fact to conform to our personal world view. Trying to reason with a fool is a fools game. Which reminds me of Apolyton OT.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
whats the difference? one's arguement sucks because one sucks... one sucks because his arguement sucks... whats the difference? At best you can say there is a correlative relation... causality is an illusion.

The point is that most ad hominems are utterly unrelated to the argument at hand. In this debate, if I were suddenly to start insulting your musical preferences as a way to undermine your arguments on ad hominems, what does that possibly do to negate your argument? Nothing. Even arguing against Giancarlo, it is not strictly enough to say "look, he's a raving nutjob, disregard his argument" because underneath it all, with a few lessons in logic and articulation, he might be able to crudely fashion a point out of his ravings. And in that case, the argument - which is the same argument as before - is clearly valid, however much we agree or disagree.

[JohnT]

If you want a good example of why ad hominems are a horrible debating technique, go over to IMDB.com, register to their boards, and start talking about movies (especially with a critical air). You'll grow real tired of it after a while.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by JohnT
If you want a good example of why ad hominems are a horrible debating technique, go over to IMDB.com, register to their boards, and start talking about movies (especially with a critical air). You'll grow real tired of it after a while.

Sounds like fun. Or you want something insanely stupid?

http://www.yupapa.com/forums - register and post there. It is like talking to a forum full of five year olds.

[Al B. Sure!]

I dont see why ad hominems have to be so irrelevent... i can criticize Picasso as being a bad painter as well as having made bad paintings and no one would have qualms with that. how can you? he makes bad paintings so he therefore is a bad painter... he is a bad painter so he therefore makes bad paintings. you got a circular causation belieing that there is no such thing as causation...

therefore, me criticizing picasso for being a bad painter is an ad hominem that is hard to have a problem with. similiarily, i can criticize Fez' emotions that lead to his beliefs... but only the emotions that lead to his beliefs...

ad hominems can be within the context.

[Immortal Wombat]

You mean, aside from the fact that maybe he was a good painter who chose to paint paintings that you would perceive to be bad, and aside from the irrelevance of all absolute judgements such as "good" and "bad" in art...?

[JohnT]

"Picasso sucks" is not an argument. It's a conclusion that should follow a reasoned argument as to why you think Picasso sucks.

[Immortal Wombat]

Anyway, that wouldn't be an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be when you said the person who thought that Picasso's paintings were good was was a bad painter, therefore he is wrong about art, therefore Picasso's paintings were bad. Obviously flawed.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
therefore, me criticizing picasso for being a bad painter is an ad hominem that is hard to have a problem with. similiarily, i can criticize Fez' emotions that lead to his beliefs... but only the emotions that lead to his beliefs...

ad hominems can be within the context.

My beliefs are based on sound reasoning. Any christian has his beliefs based on illogical notions of purported assumption.

[Az]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
explain

You don't need a belief in a supernatural entity to have a logical belief in right and wrong.

[Agathon]

That's not an ad hominem, that's simply invalid since a person doesn't have to be a good painter to identify good paintings.

Ad hominem arguments come in two types:

1) Regular - "you're a bastard, so we shouldn't believe you."

2) Circumstantial - "you will benefit from this, so we shouldn't believe you".

Neither are formal fallacies. They are just bad ways of arguing in certain contexts. After all, sometimes the fact that someone is a bastard is a good reason not to believe them.

[Lincoln]

You still haven't explained, Azazel.

[Al B. Sure!]

It's a conclusion that should follow a reasoned argument as to why you think Picasso sucks.

so you agree with me, John, that reasoned arguments are just mental justifications of one's emotional instinct (ie- that picasso sucks)? why wont you take this to its conclusion of the man himself being open to debate?

[Al B. Sure!]

My beliefs are based on sound reasoning.

i'll use this quote from Giancarlo to make my point...

beliefs are not based on sound reasoning. even if we could develop a causitive theory, which, like i said earlier, i think at best we have correleations, but if we could assume causation for the interest of simplicity... how could it be that Giancarlo's beliefs are derived from reason? Instinct is the base level of 'being', something which animals possess, so can it not be assumed that firstly, rational agents are instinctual beings who use our minds to justify our instincts? assuming causation, reasoning is the result of instincts and pre-disposed beliefs, not the other way around