• TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t have any skin in this game but just want to point out that “I understand you are hurt and angry” is an attempt to empathize with you, and not an ad hominem fallacy.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      He/She doesn’t understand anything, he/she doesn’t know me.

      If the comment was along the lines of: I understand IF you are hurt and angry, it would be different and not presumptuous. But that he continues with: “But you have to understand…” Like he is talking to a child, confirms the interpretation of an ad hominem IMO."

      But thanks for pointing out a possibly poorly worded good intention. But the way he wrote it, it looks like an ad hominem to me.

      • TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        You don’t just get to call any words that you don’t like, or even words directly attacking you, an ad hominem. A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person making the argument INSTEAD OF the actual content of the argument. “Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot” is an ad hominem. What the other commenter said to you is not. Note that people claiming “ad hominem” on statements that are not are sometimes said to be committing an “ad hominem fallacy fallacy.”

        https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person

          Which is EXACTLY what he did. And I even explained that in my previous post.

          • TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said. Did you even read the post I linked to? You’re wrong; it’s cool though, we all make mistakes. Accept it and move on.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said.

              I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.

              Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot

              That’s the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.

              And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I’m uninformed from living in a bubble.

              Yet I’m the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
              The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to “explain” that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I’m aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn’t aware of that?

              None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can’t.

              But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”, and you live in a Bubble.

              So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion? Because that’s EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It’s one HUGE ad hominem when put together.

              • TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion?

                I’m not passing any judgement on whether anything is an “OK comment.” In fact, on the topic being discussed, I think I agree with you more than the person you’re replying to. As I said though, I only stopped by to comment on your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem, because it’s super fucking annoying to me when people throw that term around when they don’t know what they’re doing.

                you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”

                THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT, no matter how good or bad as it might be, and no matter how much it is surrounded by words that you view as insulting. In fact, if anyone is resorting to an ad hominem here, it’s you, by attacking their character and dancing around the actual meat of their argument (again, as good or bad as it might be). Therefore I hope you agree with me that the other commenter did not commit an ad hominem fallacy. Or did you not read the link I posted yet?

                • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem

                  I’m surprised you still consider it fallacious?

                  THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT,

                  Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.
                  Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using “you too” arguments.

                  • TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.
                    Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using “you too” arguments.

                    Cool, now we’re getting somewhere. I agree with you! I’ll ask you for a THIRD time, have you read the article that I shared a link to? Because if you do, you’ll see why what you describe here is not an ad hominem, no matter how condescending, presumptuous, or rude the commenter might be.