Active Users:789 Time:23/12/2024 07:01:59 AM
That is not an ad hominem attack, and your prior post was not very logically coherent Isaac Send a noteboard - 02/01/2013 08:59:16 PM
Ad hominem requires not just that the counter targets you personally but is also irrelevant to the argument but used as though it were. If I call someone an asshole during an argument, that isn't usually ad hominem, if I call him irrational, that is not ad hominem. The term is getting abused more of late, especially on this site, then Strawman. "What does this man know about surgery? He's an obsessive gambler" is ad hominem. "What does this man know about surgery? He is not a doctor." is typically not. Claiming your opponent's argument (or they) are irrational or incoherent and so on generally won't be ad hominem and most cases I can think of it coming near that first hit various other ones like appeal to ridicule or proof by verbosity, in the context that one might try to discredit an opponent by simply repeating your belief they're a moron rather than ever explaining why.

Now I mention proof by verbosity partially because people use it all the time in these 'hot button' topics and probably most often as the 'everyone knows' ad populum fallacy or it's variation 'everyone with a brain/heart/etc' knows', and that latter is pretty odious on nearly an use but especially anyone in which 'everyone' doesn't include 90+% of adults, like 'the Earth is roughly spherical, not flat'.

I'm going into this because either you've got an incorrect view of what 'ad hominem' means or you think your opponent is too stupid or willfully blind to see the coherence and rightness of your arguments. Problem is, I didn't think they were coherent either, I do not see any justification for your #2 'A lot of people seem to claim/think that of the possible situations, situation 2 is preferable.' nor do you explain why in the hell it is actually relevant. A lot of people think the Moon Landing was faked, ' a lot' is a very vague term, and further one might ask what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Whatever point you were aiming for there, it either doesn't make sense or you have done the classic mistaking of leaving important bits out of an argument that were entirely right but remained in your head and never got transmitted to the audience, pretty common especially in casually written remarks. So it does come off as incoherent, because frankly you didn't get around to gluing them together, they are not adhering, not cohering.

As to #4, that's demonstrably false in numerous reasonable cases I'll cheerfully explain why in inordinate detail if you want, but for brevity's sake here, your case would require literally that there is no reasonable case where self-defense can occur using a gun that spends most of its time locked up in a safe, which is true of damn near every gun every military uses.

You've also started with a pretty confusing premise in the first place, since it revolves around the potential danger of a gun to its owner, something most gun owners are quite aware of, everything has its pros and cons, but in this case is best compared to a bodyguard. An awful lot of people have been betrayed by bodyguards throughout history, this does not invalidate the idea of having some. The logic you've presented would apply equally well to such cases and is very bizarre presented as a serious argument. Many people are murdered by family members or trusted persons, its not a very good reason not to have such people. A city wall won't protect you from riots in the streets, doesn't mean it serves no useful purpose, so to very little can protect you from treachery by a relative or close friend, this doesn't mean it's pointless, just unlikely to protect you from that specific thing. A locked door won't protect your form being robbed by your kid with a key, doesn't mean you don't bother having a door with a lock on it.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
This message last edited by Isaac on 02/01/2013 at 09:07:06 PM
Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1554 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 1003 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 931 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 875 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1030 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1185 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 535 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 864 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 870 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 916 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 883 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 935 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 851 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 842 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 906 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 880 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 866 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 892 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 873 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 918 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1083 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 807 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 864 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 776 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 945 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 998 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 567 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 818 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 499 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 927 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 730 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 893 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 950 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 898 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 830 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 899 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 821 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 583 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 914 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 890 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 831 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 809 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 791 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 811 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 505 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 805 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 492 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 1001 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 791 Views
As a father, I would rather kill my own child than have him kill 26 other people. - 27/12/2012 04:35:02 PM 753 Views
And as a father, you are somehow clairvoyant? - 28/12/2012 07:43:08 AM 802 Views
Nice flippant unthinking reply, you and moondog should get together. *NM* - 28/12/2012 04:55:14 PM 546 Views
How is my reply flippant? Your statement was unthinking, not mine. - 29/12/2012 06:59:04 AM 842 Views
YOU asked if it would have been better for her to kill her own child instead, I answered. - 29/12/2012 03:52:02 PM 859 Views
I asked if a shoot out between mother and son had been better, not whether she should have killed - 29/12/2012 08:54:09 PM 786 Views
You make no sense. - 31/12/2012 06:07:50 PM 860 Views
I make no sense to you because you probably just don't understand my point. - 01/01/2013 08:09:11 AM 935 Views
Maybe the heat death of the univers occurs before you finally have a cohearant thought - 01/01/2013 07:34:31 PM 851 Views
You do realize that resorting to personal attacks reveal an inability to make sound arguments? *NM* - 02/01/2013 06:01:33 PM 602 Views
That is not an ad hominem attack, and your prior post was not very logically coherent - 02/01/2013 08:59:16 PM 933 Views
Instead of actually showing why my arguments would be incoherent or why I'm immature, he just said - 05/01/2013 02:02:23 AM 936 Views
He did not - 05/01/2013 01:39:40 PM 1240 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 800 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 509 Views

Reply to Message