Ad Hominem – A Logical Fallacy

Apparently I hurt the tender feelings of our poor pathetic blogstalkers, but they can’t find fault with my argument so they resort to logical fallacy.  From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

[…]

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.

Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the source asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position it claims, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.

An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.

[…]

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Source A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Source A
Therefore claim X is false

Let me repeat the money quote:

Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference.

I freely admit that I am a semi-civilized guy with a raunchy and politically incorrect sense of humor and that I’ve said things from time to time that were inappropriate. With Google and the obsessive focus of a blogstalker you can find some of them. But that doesn’t change the fact that I’m a flaming liberal and that when it matters my heart’s in the right place.  It also doesn’t disprove anything I said about Obama or any of his cult followers.

Kreepy Kevin and the internet vermin that hang out with him can kiss my ass.

——————————————————————-
Where Blogstalkers come from:

UPDATE:

Just so there is no misunderstanding, by “internet vermin” I am specifically including a certain two-faced, talentless bullshitter who scammed some people out of their money and then betrayed their trust.  To that person I say:

FUCK YOU TOO

Advertisements

26 Responses to Ad Hominem – A Logical Fallacy

  1. Tom65 says:

    nope, still laughing. Hypocrite.

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Vaginaphobic limpdick misogynists can’t relate to this:

    These days there’s dudes gettin’ facials, manicured, waxed and botoxed. With deep spray-on tans and creamy lotion on yer hands you can’t grip no tackle box.

    Yeah, with all of these men linin’ up to get neutered it’s hip now to be feminized. I don’t highlight my hair, I’ve still got a pair.
    Yeah, honey I’m still a guy.

    Oh my eyebrows ain’t plucked there’s a gun in my truck. Oh thank god, I’m still a guy.

  3. myiq2xu says:

    Dear Tom:

    You’re laughing at me, but the world is laughing at you

  4. Eric says:

    Blog stalker is ad hominem too. Also. Microtrends.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Really? What premise did they assert that I tried to disprove by attacking them personally?

      Thanks for playing, please try again

  5. myiq2xu says:

    Dear Tom65:

    How much do you know about the people you hang out with in the blogosphere?

    Would you be shocked to learn that some of the people you post comments with are known stalkers?

    I ask this because your online profile doesn’t indicate that you are deranged, so I wonder if you really know who your “friends” are?

  6. Eric says:

    The premise that you are a slut-shaming mysoginist.

    You are also attempting to invalidate any and all criticism directed against you vis a vis your sexist comments. It is called an enthymeme, boyo, and you have a right winger’s facility with its usage.

    And you are stupid. Microtrends.

  7. John Cain says:

    The ad hominem is only a fallacy when the insult is the only response to an argument. If Kevin had just called you a sexist hypocritical asshole, he’d be engaging in the fallacy. However, since he called you a sexist hypocritical asshole while listing several quotes of you being a sexist hypocritical asshole, he’s not engaging in the fallacy. You might want to look up a better source than Wikipedia next time.

    Furthermore, since you answer every criticism of yourself with a either “stalker” or the dehumanizing “Obot”, I don’t really think you’re in a position to point out logical gaps in anyone else’s argument.

  8. Ripley says:

    Just so there is no misunderstanding, by “internet vermin” I am specifically including a certain two-faced, talentless bullshitter who scammed some people out of their money and then betrayed their trust.

    They paid for a documentary, they got a documentary. ILM couldn’t make Darragh’s “movement” look reasonable.

    Thanks for playing, please try again.

  9. myiq2xu says:

    FYI Blogstalkers:

    The administrative board is aware of your post (and mine) because I emailed them and told them.

    I chose not to post this at The Confluence because I don’t care to give you any more attention than necessary. But that was solely my choice.

  10. pumarubbernecker says:

    I chose not to post this at The Confluence because I don’t care to give you any more attention than necessary.

    Yeah, that’s pretty much exactly what we’re accusing you of. You’re too embarrassed by your past sexist behavior to have this issue see the light of day in front of your dimwitted sychophants over there. Duh.

    Too bad, really. I was hoping this would cause another PUMA split when The New Agenda calls for you to be sent to a battered womens shelter for education, and then Betty Kling blows up and calls for you to be castrated, and calls The New Agenda a sellout.

    Then you would all cry again.

  11. brotherkomrade says:

    your last comments confirms it up for me poser: you sound like a ready-made cell bitch if I ever saw one.

    “The administrative board is aware of your post (and mine) because I emailed them and told them.”

    oooooo, what a man.

    • myiq2xu says:

      You sound like a man with extensive personal experience with “cell bitches” and other aspects of penal institutions.

      Let me guess, you were in for beating up women, right?

      Either that or something perverted. Are you legally required to visit the police station every year on your birthday and within 10 days of changing your residence?

      One last question – do you have breasts tattooed on your back or did you get them lasered off already?

      FYI to anyone reading this:

      “brotherkomrade” is a blogger who thinks its funny to post pictures of dead mountain lions on his blog under the heading “Best day ever” and then go around posting links to it in the comment threads of blogs run by PUMA women. He also goes around leaving comments that are ominous and threatening.

      That’s not blogstalking, it’s the real thing.

      In my experience guys who stalk and harass women they don’t even know will usually have criminal records for things like prowling, stalking, obscene/harassing phone calls, vandalism, violating retraining orders and crimes against women. If they don’t have anything serious on their rap sheet it’s because when they cross that line they probably won’t be coming back.

      Of course they always blame their convictions on lying victims, crooked cops and dump-truck public defenders.

  12. native11 says:

    myiq,

    Great post. Some good info and a refresher for anyone who ever took Logic and Reasoning in college.

    I too would be interested in a reasoned argument as to why BO should be given a pass on flip-flopping on EVERY major issue he campaigned on and as a corollary why anyone asking about this is automatically tarred and feathered.

    Sadly I don’t think reason and/or discourse is the objective, only personal destruction seems to be the goal.

    Don’t let it get you down(not that it seems to)a lot of people enjoy your stuff.

    You can always go nucular and turn the “Captain”
    loose on them.

    L8r g8r.

  13. helenk says:

    I though I would stop in and give you some moral support. I guess I am one of the people that the obots call old bitter racist knitters with a gun and religion.
    i have been around long enough to know that idiots come and go but facts stay.
    You were smart enough to want the most qualified person who would do the best she could for the country.
    Obots choose color over country and we all are paying for it. Never ever let them forget what they did .Keep on stating facts that they will not face and do it with style, humor and snark.

    WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

  14. uriqfourxlessthantriggs says:

    BRavo!

    still trying to line up that PUMA poon I see!

    you are such a staunch defender of women!

    you’re like a male betty friedan!

    BRAVO!!!

    great job!

  15. Rosalind says:

    brotherkomradeSays “ready-made cell bitch”?

    Good heavens. Where do these people come from.

    Is this really their idea of political discourse?

  16. Rosalind says:

    Hi, Myiq.

    My comment didn’t show up. Did I do something wrong?

    Thanks,

    Rosalind

  17. ulla the perky pink rose says:

    Since you take the coward’s tactic of editing comments you don’t like, I’m taking a screenshot of my comment.

    A man who thinks it funny to post a picture of a witch crashed into a tree with the caption “My ex-wife injured in accident” and the sentiment “I was heartbroken to learn she will recover” is hardly in a position to complain about somebody else posting pictures of expired pumas. No actual woman was harmed in the first instance, and no particular woman was threatened.

    Your ex, OTOH, no doubt saw your little joke, and whatever may have happened, you aimed a blow at a living, particular woman, and it no doubt found its mark. Congrats.

    It is your hypocrisy that earns you the most contempt, calling other people misogynists while you pull crap far, far worse.

    And here’s the link to your Confluence post about your ex:http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/my-ex-wife-injured-in-accident/

    Some big feminist. Want to blame the patriarchy again?

    • myiq2xu says:

      What color is the sky in your world? Ours is blue.

      I wouldn’t dream of editing your comment – it serves my purpose just the way it is. I spent quite a while on this post and you proved my point in less time and with fewer words.

      Does that make you an idiot savant?

      BTW – I can’t wait to show your comment to my ex-wife, she’s gonna laugh her ass off.

  18. CAROL HAKA says:

    Hey asswipe blogstalkers!

    We PUMA’s know the difference between a funny joke at the expense of a woman and that misogynistic, piece of crap that has temporarily stolen the Presidency!

    Don’t waste your time trying to piss us off! We know who and what we are – take a look in the mirror and try to create that reality in your life!

    And by the way, I voted for Sarah Palin and will again if that piece of shit makes it onto the next ballot!

    And oh yeah, I’m not afraid of her stance on abortion or what Levi Johnson has to say. And if necessary, I will pay for her wardrobe.

    CAROL HAKA 👿

  19. native11 says:

    What’s the saying…”so many Obots and so little spit”?

    Looong day. Here’s a shot of Tequila, the good stuff. Oops don’t forget the Captain, don’t want him mad at me. In fact keep the bottle I’m buyin.

    Good times.

%d bloggers like this: