- Joined
- Dec 24, 2018
An ad hominem argument, for the uninitiated, is when you attack the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. For example:
Person A: I support Hillary because she's a seasoned politician with a proven track record.
Person B: Nuh-uh, you only support her because you're a libtard, libtard!
Person A: ???
The ad hominem argument is very common in internet threads where you don't run the risk of being beaten into the ground for calling someone names.
Now, my question is this: if the argument is about you (that is, you and another person are arguing about certain aspects of you), when your arguments about yourself are being attacked, is that a valid argument, or is it an ad hominem attack?
(Yes, I know there is a difference between the ad hominem fallacy and the ad hominem attack. For the purposes of the question, it's an ad hominem attack.)
tl;dr- when I make an argument about myself, and you attack that argument, are you engaging in an ad hominem attack or not?
Person A: I support Hillary because she's a seasoned politician with a proven track record.
Person B: Nuh-uh, you only support her because you're a libtard, libtard!
Person A: ???
The ad hominem argument is very common in internet threads where you don't run the risk of being beaten into the ground for calling someone names.
Now, my question is this: if the argument is about you (that is, you and another person are arguing about certain aspects of you), when your arguments about yourself are being attacked, is that a valid argument, or is it an ad hominem attack?
(Yes, I know there is a difference between the ad hominem fallacy and the ad hominem attack. For the purposes of the question, it's an ad hominem attack.)
We document a cow here named Alessandro Connor Vidal, AKA Alex. A troon by choice and a depraved individual in general, he discovered his thread in early 2019, and like so many before him, joined to defend his honor and behavior. We welcomed him with open arms and gladly pointed out where he was a mess, yet like every cow, he refused to take our constructive criticism.
Where things pertained to the Deep Thoughts board was when we listed our proof that he was an awful person. He declared our arguments ad hominem attacks and left, saying he was unwilling to put up with people who attack him personally.
But here's the thing: while we engaged in the usual deadnaming and name calling, we never once made that behavior our argument, i.e., when he'd argue that lusting after little girls wasn't a bad thing, we didn't call him names in response; we instead pointed out how and why it was wrong.
While I'm sure Alex wouldn't care about the nature of his argument, I personally found the dynamics interesting. Is this some kind of paradox that has already been discovered or documented? Something new? What are your thoughts?
Where things pertained to the Deep Thoughts board was when we listed our proof that he was an awful person. He declared our arguments ad hominem attacks and left, saying he was unwilling to put up with people who attack him personally.
Despite his vow never to visit us again, he lurks here still, watching his thread.
Alex: I like little girls' breasts.
Kiwi: That makes you a pedophile, and here's why: (gives reasons)
Alex: Stop attacking me!
Kiwi: That makes you a pedophile, and here's why: (gives reasons)
Alex: Stop attacking me!
tl;dr- when I make an argument about myself, and you attack that argument, are you engaging in an ad hominem attack or not?
