Crazy-ass fallacy

[Darth Wong]

"You attack my beliefs, so it's OK for me to use ad-hominems against you!"

How many of you have run into this, or some variation of it? I'm really getting tired of it.

[SirNitram]

"You attack my beliefs, so it's OK for me to use ad-hominems against you!"

How many of you have run into this, or some variation of it? I'm really getting tired of it.

The people who use this are ultimately little more than little human-shaped blobs that carry the beleifs and memes they've been pumped full of, and when they open their mouth, out they come.

Ergo, attacking their beleifs is attacking them. There's nothing else to them.

[Adrian Laguna]

I'm really getting tired of it.

Let me guess: debating fun at TWCenter.

I think SirNitram pegged it. They consider attacking their beliefs a form of ad-hominem, thus they think it's okay to reply in kind. Nevermind that even if they were right, replying to fallacies with more fallacies is not logically sound.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Plenty of times. I'm even running into those over at the Dawkins board where some idiots have signed on trying to refute evolution (as you do) and get all uppity when you critique their pet belief. It's funny hearing a Xtian fundie say he's getting "fucking annoyed" when you've simply been citing science papers and taking the time to explain to a Layman politely.

You'll notice it's typically religion that is the sacred cow, not politics or sports team.

[Durandal]

"You attack my beliefs, so it's OK for me to use ad-hominems against you!"

How many of you have run into this, or some variation of it? I'm really getting tired of it.

The ones I generally see are "You're attacking my beliefs; that's an ad hominem, and you're being a meanie!" It's absolutely infuriating. To many people, analogizing belief in God with belief in Santa Claus is actually an ad hominem.

Then of course, there's getting accused of using an ad hominem attack when all you really do is insult the person. I've gotten into a few exchanges about this kind of thing, and no one ever believes me when I say that insults and ad hominems are different, and the presence of an insult in an argument does not automatically invalidate the rest of the content.

[Darth Wong]

The great thing about arguing with people who have actually taken formal logic in school is that if you catch them on something like that, they'll admit error. Most regular people are so goddamned dense that you could explain it to them ten times and they still won't get it.

[Durandal]

The great thing about arguing with people who have actually taken formal logic in school is that if you catch them on something like that, they'll admit error. Most regular people are so goddamned dense that you could explain it to them ten times and they still won't get it.

Even the ones that have had some exposure to formal logic usually got it in some pathetic imitation of a college course. A lot of schools make freshmen take some sort of critical thinking course, but I've never heard of anyone who learned anything from it.

What usually happens is that professors from various disciplines teach different sections of the class. So one section might have a physicist teaching, while the other could have a communication professor. Obviously, you'll get widely varying lessons between those two, with the communications professor probably being more tolerant of bullshit.

In my case, I had a psychology professor. When we covered evolution versus creationism, she actually said, "Evolution's a theory, but it's not a law yet."

[Darth Raptor]

Plenty of times. I'm even running into those over at the Dawkins board where some idiots have signed on trying to refute evolution (as you do) and get all uppity when you critique their pet belief. It's funny hearing a Xtian fundie say he's getting "fucking annoyed" when you've simply been citing science papers and taking the time to explain to a Layman politely.

He thinks it's rude to totally wtfpwn his worthless claims, but he just can't comprehend how much more rude he's being. Willfully ignorant, dishonest and *somehow* condescending all at the same time. Good thing he's taking the crusade to the heart of enemy territory, eh? With PR like that, Jesus doesn't need critics.

[Darth Wong]

The great thing about arguing with people who have actually taken formal logic in school is that if you catch them on something like that, they'll admit error. Most regular people are so goddamned dense that you could explain it to them ten times and they still won't get it.

Even the ones that have had some exposure to formal logic usually got it in some pathetic imitation of a college course. A lot of schools make freshmen take some sort of critical thinking course, but I've never heard of anyone who learned anything from it.

What usually happens is that professors from various disciplines teach different sections of the class. So one section might have a physicist teaching, while the other could have a communication professor. Obviously, you'll get widely varying lessons between those two, with the communications professor probably being more tolerant of bullshit.

In my case, I had a psychology professor. When we covered evolution versus creationism, she actually said, "Evolution's a theory, but it's not a law yet."

When I was younger, I actually subscribed to the "theory vs law" idea of reliability myself, because after all, a "law" sounds like it must be more well-accepted and reliable than a theory. Then I realized that the Ideal Gas Law is seriously inaccurate most of the time, and yet it's still called a law.

[Rye]

"You attack my beliefs, so it's OK for me to use ad-hominems against you!"

How many of you have run into this, or some variation of it? I'm really getting tired of it.

The ones I generally see are "You're attacking my beliefs; that's an ad hominem, and you're being a meanie!" It's absolutely infuriating. To many people, analogizing belief in God with belief in Santa Claus is actually an ad hominem.

Then of course, there's getting accused of using an ad hominem attack when all you really do is insult the person. I've gotten into a few exchanges about this kind of thing, and no one ever believes me when I say that insults and ad hominems are different, and the presence of an insult in an argument does not automatically invalidate the rest of the content.

Actually, ad hominem as recognised by the dictionary in modern usage can refer to pure insults, but you can hammer home the fact that it's not fallacious, it's just mean and entertaining. I mean, the phrase "to the man" would apply to insults too, it would be better to say that they are equivocating between ad hominem and ad hominem fallacy.

Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable.

The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable.

The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·

Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·

A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in "Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination" (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in "Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus" (Donna M. Riley).

[Frank Hipper]

"You attack my beliefs, so it's OK for me to use ad-hominems against you!"

How many of you have run into this, or some variation of it? I'm really getting tired of it.

All that's left in that case is "Concession Accepted".

If they could refute, they would; if all they are capable of is insult then they are beaten.

Rub their noses in it, with much vigor and ruthlessness.

[Durandal]

When I was younger, I actually subscribed to the "theory vs law" idea of reliability myself, because after all, a "law" sounds like it must be more well-accepted and reliable than a theory. Then I realized that the Ideal Gas Law is seriously inaccurate most of the time, and yet it's still called a law.

I was under the same misconception. Then I actually looked up what the difference was, something a person with a Ph.D. in a field claiming to be a science was apparently incapable of doing.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

"You attack my beliefs, so it's OK for me to use ad-hominems against you!"

How many of you have run into this, or some variation of it? I'm really getting tired of it.

Falun Gong fanatics like to use this. Anyone criticizing their statements, claims....etc automatically becomes an evil PRC commie.

[Adrian Laguna]

When I was younger, I actually subscribed to the "theory vs law" idea of reliability myself, because after all, a "law" sounds like it must be more well-accepted and reliable than a theory. Then I realized that the Ideal Gas Law is seriously inaccurate most of the time, and yet it's still called a law.

I was under the same misconception. Then I actually looked up what the difference was, something a person with a Ph.D. in a field claiming to be a science was apparently incapable of doing.

It's a rather common misconception, to the point that it's taught in schools. I remember in middle school, I was taught about the progression from hypothesis, to theory, to law. You start with the hypothesis supported by little evidence; it becomes a theory when a lot of evidence supports the hypothesis; the theory, in turn, becomes a law when there is even more evidence in support of its validity, to the point of near certainty.

Can't recall when I found-out the difference, maybe it was SDN, maybe it was earlier. It's really not that complicated: a law is a generalization about nature, a theory explains the mechanisms through which nature works. The Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that masses attract each other, the Theory of General Relativity explains why.

[Darth Servo]

I think SirNitram pegged it. They consider attacking their beliefs a form of ad-hominem, thus they think it's okay to reply in kind. Nevermind that even if they were right, replying to fallacies with more fallacies is not logically sound.

I disagree. Most of them don't even know what an ad-hominem means. They perceive that you're hurling insults so they return the favor. The fact that your insults address the point while theirs do not doesn't even register on their radar.

[Adrian Laguna]

I think SirNitram pegged it. They consider attacking their beliefs a form of ad-hominem, thus they think it's okay to reply in kind. Nevermind that even if they were right, replying to fallacies with more fallacies is not logically sound.

I disagree. Most of them don't even know what an ad-hominem means. They perceive that you're hurling insults so they return the favor. The fact that your insults address the point while theirs do not doesn't even register on their radar.

The last sentence assumed an opponent trying to make a logical argument, even if they only end-up butchering logic and raping the corpse. The core of what I'm saying is that attacking their beliefs is perceived as attacking and/or insulting them personally, thus they reply in kind.

[defanatic]

It would really only be an "ad hominem" if they argued using it. e.g. You're an atheist, therefore all your arguments are wrong. Or You have a small penis, ergo there is a God.

It would just be insults if they just used insults without using them in an argument.

[Darth Servo]

It would really only be an "ad hominem" if they argued using it. e.g....You have a small penis, ergo there is a God.

Thats not an ad hominem. Thats a red herring and/or non-sequitor.

[Jew]

When I was younger, I actually subscribed to the "theory vs law" idea of reliability myself, because after all, a "law" sounds like it must be more well-accepted and reliable than a theory. Then I realized that the Ideal Gas Law is seriously inaccurate most of the time, and yet it's still called a law.

You've never had an ideal gas to experiment with so you can't accuse the law of being innaccurate. Maybe you just don't understand what the Ideal Gas Law actually means.

But your larger point about the difference between theories and laws is well taken. That was explained quite well to me in my science class at a private Christian high school, so it's never been a source of confusion for me. But it does seem to be a difficult concept for a lot of people.

[Darth Servo]

But your larger point about the difference between theories and laws is well taken. That was explained quite well to me in my science class at a private Christian high school

Amazing that a "Christian" school would teach such a thing, since the "its just a theory" nonsense is so popular among the creationist movement. Must be a rather liberal Christian school.

[Jew]

But your larger point about the difference between theories and laws is well taken. That was explained quite well to me in my science class at a private Christian high school

Amazing that a "Christian" school would teach such a thing, since the "its just a theory" nonsense is so popular among the creationist movement. Must be a rather liberal Christian school.

You have an overly jaded view of Christian schools, I think. My education was excellent but nothing out of the ordinary. It wasn't the most conservative of schools, but it certainly wasn't liberal.

[LaserRifleofDoom]

My experience with christian schooling was that the Jesuits kept theology seperate from science. The Catholic church is very welcoming to science, it's the crazy Protestants that have problems with evolution and logic.

[Jew]

My experience with christian schooling was that the Jesuits kept theology seperate from science. The Catholic church is very welcoming to science, it's the crazy Protestants that have problems with evolution and logic.

My school was quite Protestant, and they had no trouble teaching science and logic properly. I don't recall ever hearing the words Intelligent Design in a classroom, and certainly not in science class. There was at least one course that discussed it, but it was a Bible course that I never signed up for, so I don't know how it was presented.

[Darth Wong]

I think it actually varies more with the teacher than the school, unless you're dealing with some crazy-ass fundie school. Individual teachers get hired based on meeting certain minimum qualifications, and if you get stuck with some Bible-thumping moron then you're going to get an earful of creationist bullshit. That will continue until someone complains, at which point the nature of the school administrators comes into play.

I suspect there are quite a few teachers out there who teach creationist anti-science bullshit and don't get in trouble because nobody complains. Especially in rural areas.

[Magus]

My experience with christian schooling was that the Jesuits kept theology seperate from science. The Catholic church is very welcoming to science, it's the crazy Protestants that have problems with evolution and logic.

Seconded. I was fucking homeschooled in a Catholic family for 6 years, with 6 more years of Catholic education. At no point did I ever learn anything other than "humanity evolved via evolution - Charles Darwin spearheaded the theory, etc, etc...