[LMB] OT: The End of Slavery
matt.msg at gmail.com
Fri Sep 3 03:00:05 BST 2021
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 9:35 PM B Van Look <vanlook19 at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a textbook example of an Ad Hominem logical fallacy.
No, it's an insult. To quote Wikipedia:
Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker
> attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making
> an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
> This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but
> often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A
> makes a claim *x*, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome,
> and hence B concludes that argument *x* is wrong".
I've already presented analysis of the arguments in question, explained in
great detail where they fail, noted that the same errors are repeated again
and again regardless of the number of times they are corrected, and
concluded that they are either made with intent or out of intellectual
incompetence. Insults are not being substituted for arguments, they are
being made =because of= arguments - invalid arguments that contradict
elementary principles of which no one with a mental age greater than five
can be expected to be ignorant of, and which stand in contradiction to
simple, easily-verified facts which no one capable of composing and sending
email can defensibly claim not to be able to check.
Anyone can make a mistake, have a blind spot, fail to perceive a point.
When someone persistently does any of those things, we are =obliged= to
inquire as to their motivations and/or mental capacities. What do you
expect us to believe: your protestations, or our lying minds?
brazee's refusal to acknowledge simple facts and elementary reasoning is
quite uncharacteristic; I am saddened and disappointed, but this does not
invalidate his general pattern of intelligent conversation and reasonable
discussion. Neither you nor Grabnar have a track record of good arguments;
instead, you have a consistent pattern of refusing to acknowledge obvious
conclusions and well-known facts, and I am tired of your nonsense.
I do not argue that your arguments are wrong because you are an ignorant
fool or a liar. I conclude that you are a liar or an ignorant fool because
your arguments are consistently wrong. My stating the conclusion renders
it an insult; the facts render it a highly defensible judgment.
More information about the Lois-Bujold