Took the M for a stroll

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by android, Dec 30, 2013.

  1. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>, says...
    : >
    : > In article <>,
    : >
    : > >
    : > > >In article <>,
    : > > >
    : > > >>
    : > > >> >In article <>,
    : > > >> >
    : > > >> >> rOn Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:31:30 -0500, Tony Cooper
    : > > >> >>
    : > > >> >> >
    : > > >> >> >>In article <>, Tony Cooper
    : > > >> >> >>wrote:
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Tony Cooper:
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > My only comment is "Why did you take it?".
    : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Normally, I'd critique an image only if I see something good
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > and something that could be improved. I wouldn't comment on
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > a photograph that has no redeeming value.
    : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > But, here you've invited comments and even said you "worked"
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > on the post. I can't understand why you'd bother.
    : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Surely, there was some interesting photographable scene
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > around that day. The camera may have passed your test, but
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > > the operator of the camera failed.
    : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > Sandman:
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > Tony in a nutshell. He just can't stop at "Why did
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > you take it?", he has to lace the post with some personal
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > insults as well. Why, otherwise he wouldn't be a troll, of
    : > > >> >> >>> > > > course!
    : > > >> >> >>> > >
    : > > >> >> >>> > > Tony Cooper:
    : > > >> >> >>> > > There's no insult to Android there.
    : > > >> >> >>> >
    : > > >> >> >>> > Sandman:
    : > > >> >> >>> > Your grasp on the English language is as loose as always.
    : > > >> >> >>>
    : > > >> >> >>> You are commenting on personal aspects, and the rest of us are
    : > > >> >> >>> commenting on the photograph.
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >>> Who's the troll?
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >>You are.
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >> "but the operator of the camera failed."
    : > > >> >> >>
    : > > >> >> >>Ad hominem, when he wanted comments on the photograph. Typical Tony.
    : > > >> >>
    : > > >> >> That's not an ad hominem. It's a comment.
    : > > >> >>
    : > > >> >> Ad hominems are used in argument, not the conclusion.
    : > > >> >>
    : > > >> >> http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
    : > > >> >> "In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse.
    : > > >> >> Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to
    : > > >> >> undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of
    : > > >> >> addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack
    : > > >> >> does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the
    : > > >> >> purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical
    : > > >> >> fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone;
    : > > >> >> the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also
    : > > >> >> necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
    : > > >> >> >
    : > > >> >> >An "ad hominem" comment is when there is an attempt to divert the
    : > > >> >> >discussion with a negative and irrelevant personal comment. What you
    : > > >> >> >have done is an almost classic example of this.
    : > > >> >> >
    : > > >> >> >My comments were about the photograph, and extensively so, but you
    : > > >> >> >have snipped these to divert the discussion and included an irrelevant
    : > > >> >> >personal comment. Try looking up the term "ad hominem" so you will
    : > > >> >> >not embarrass yourself further.
    : > > >> >> >
    : > > >> >> >It's ironic for a post to contain both a comment about not
    : > > >> >> >understanding a language and a misuse of language by the same person.
    : > > >> >
    : > > >> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
    : > > >> >
    : > > >>
    : > > >> Yes, that's a good, if succinct, definition. The key words in that
    : > > >> definition are "rather than". In other words, instead of providing a
    : > > >> rebuttal to an argument, the person who employs the ad hominem route
    : > > >> attacks the person in order to divert the discussion.
    : > > >>
    : > > >> A response that legitimately addresses the point of contention, and
    : > > >> also contains an insult, is not an ad hominem response.
    : > > >
    : > > >Webster:
    : > > >Definition of AD HOMINEM
    : > > >1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    : > > >2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than
    : > > >by an answer to the contentions made
    : > >
    : > > These have that "rather than" again. The intellectual argument has
    : > > been abandoned in favor of, or rather than, an attack to the emotions.
    : > > For ad hominem to exist, there has to be a) a point of contention that
    : > > calls for rebuttal, and b) an attempt to divert the discussion to
    : > > something personal instead of, or rather than, providing a rebuttal.
    : > >
    : > > It's all about diversion. Instead of addressing your
    : > > counter-argument, I'll call you names and divert the discussion to
    : > > your character. That's an argumentum ad hominem.
    : >
    : > Now you've gone silly... The term comes from the latin and means
    : > basically "personal attack". That's has not changed.
    :
    : 'fraid not. In Latin, "ad" is a preposition which can be translated as
    : "toward", "to", "up to", or "in the direction of". "Hominem" is the
    : accusative singular of "homo" or "person". "ad hominem" per se means
    : simply "to the person", not "personal attack". "perferretque ad
    : hominem" would be a message to the man for example--there is nothing in
    : the phrase "ad hominem" that indicates any kind of attack. "Personal
    : attack" would be more like "quod personaliter impetus".
    :
    : In the context of debate, "ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad
    : hominem", which is an "argument to the man".

    In modern English, in this context, "ad" may be best translated as "at".

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 3, 2014
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    While I recognize and support changes in usage of our language, I
    don't support using an established term with a new meaning when there
    are perfectly good words available to say the same thing.

    If you want to say that a comment is an insult, the word "insult"
    conveys exactly what you want to convey. There's no reason to use "ad
    hominem" in place of "insult", or the phrase "personal attack", other
    than a desire to sound intellectual and an attempt to impress. The
    actual reaction is just the opposite; the mis-user sounds ignorant and
    pretentious to those who understand the meaning.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. android

    Sandman Guest

    Incorrect.
     
    Sandman, Jan 3, 2014
    #63
  4. android

    Guest Guest

    doesn't matter what you support. languages evolve and meanings change
    over time, particularly with slang.
    insult and ad hominem may be similar but they're not exactly the same
    and not necessarily interchangeable.
     
    Guest, Jan 3, 2014
    #64
  5. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Of course it matters. It matters to me and to others who respect the
    language. Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, or to the Swedish
    Popinjay, but that's just an indication of ignorance.

    Latin, though, hasn't evolved. This isn't an evolved version of the
    term; it's the actual and original version of the term. And, this
    isn't a slang term.
    They are not remotely similar terms and not at all interchangeable.
    That you don't see this is the problem. The people who *use* them as
    similar terms are ignorant.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #65
  6. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : >: 'fraid not. In Latin, "ad" is a preposition which can be translated as
    : >: "toward", "to", "up to", or "in the direction of". "Hominem" is the
    : >: accusative singular of "homo" or "person". "ad hominem" per se means
    : >: simply "to the person", not "personal attack". "perferretque ad
    : >: hominem" would be a message to the man for example--there is nothing in
    : >: the phrase "ad hominem" that indicates any kind of attack. "Personal
    : >: attack" would be more like "quod personaliter impetus".
    : >:
    : >: In the context of debate, "ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad
    : >: hominem", which is an "argument to the man".
    : >
    : >In modern English, in this context, "ad" may be best translated as "at".
    : >
    : While I recognize and support changes in usage of our language, I
    : don't support using an established term with a new meaning when there
    : are perfectly good words available to say the same thing.

    I wasn't suggesting a change in the meaning of the term. I was merely
    suggesting that in modern English "argument at the man" expresses it better
    than "argument to the man". I won't be offended if you don't agree.

    : If you want to say that a comment is an insult, the word "insult"
    : conveys exactly what you want to convey. There's no reason to use "ad
    : hominem" in place of "insult", or the phrase "personal attack", other
    : than a desire to sound intellectual and an attempt to impress. The
    : actual reaction is just the opposite; the mis-user sounds ignorant and
    : pretentious to those who understand the meaning.

    Now that's an absolute non sequitur (to introduce another useful Latin term).
    Nothing in that paragraph has anything whatever to do with what I wrote in the
    article to which you ostensibly responded.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 4, 2014
    #66
  7. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    That's an indefinite, or generic, "you" in that paragraph. I could
    have written "If one wants to say..." and avoided the "you". That
    might have eliminated any confusion, but the use of "one" can sound
    pretentious at times.

    I've not known you to insult anyone, so the "you" isn't you.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 4, 2014
    #67
  8. android

    android Guest

    And that translates "personal attack".
    EOD
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #68
  9. android

    android Guest

    You snippet the
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #69
  10. android

    android Guest

    You snippet the
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #70
  11. android

    Sandman Guest

    Tony, the groups biggest illiterate, is again trying to argue word
    definitions.

    His latest game is that someone has used "ad hominem" to mean "insult" and
    then he's arguing that "ad hominem" doesn't translate to "insult", which is
    all fine and great, but he lacks the wit to understand that even if "ad
    hominem" doesn't translate to "insult", an insult can still be an ad
    hominem.

    You'd think that Tony would have understood by now that arguing word
    definitions in this group has *never* gotten him anywhere. BUt, he is a
    troll and need to argue about anything and everything as long as possible.
     
    Sandman, Jan 5, 2014
    #71
  12. android

    J. Clarke Guest

    No, you are not attacking the person. There is a different Latin phrase
    that means "personal attack". You are attacking the argument by citing
    some irrelevant and possibly distasteful characteristic of the arguer.
    "Going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement because von Braun was a
    Nazi" would be an example of argumentum ad hominem. There is no
    "attack" there. Von Braun _was_ a Nazi. The logical fallacy is that
    his being a Nazi had some relation to the difficulty of going to the
    Moon.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 5, 2014
    #72
  13. android

    android Guest

    you do not understand the context. "Argument to man" instead of that
    that is relevant to to the discourse >>> personal attack...

    You snippet it but here it is again...

    EOD
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #73
  14. android

    android Guest

    You're not adding anything of substance here. You say that you were
    responding to Clark. I say: Oki...
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #74
  15. android

    android Guest

    You're not adding anything of substance here. You say that you were
    responding to Clarke. I say: Oki...
     
    android, Jan 5, 2014
    #75
  16. android

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I don't know if I'm the groups [sic] biggest illiterate, but I doubt
    it. At 5'8" and 175 pounds, I'm probably well down the list.
    I have to hand it to you, Jonas. That's one of the slickest weasel
    maneuvers I've seen. You've now come to the light, evidently, because
    you hint that you now understand that "ad hominem" is not a synonym
    for "insult" as you have been using it.

    Further, you've constructed a strawman with that last - somewhat
    muddled - part of the sentence where you say "an insult can still be
    an ad hominem.". You'd be right to say that an insult can be *part*
    of an ad hominem argument because it must contain a diversionary
    attack on the other person. An insult not part of an argument,
    though, is not an ad hominem. We see many posts here where an insult
    is proffered but no argumentative text is included and/or where the
    insult is not an attempt to divert the argument to the person.
    It's not my intent to "gotten" anywhere.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 5, 2014
    #76
  17. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <[email protected]>,
    :
    : > On 2014-01-05 13:44:29 +0000, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    : >
    : > > In article <>, says...
    : > >>
    : > >> In article <>,
    : > >>
    : > >>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 05:01:21 -0500, "J. Clarke" <>
    : > >>> wrote:
    : > >>> : In article <>, says...
    : > >>> : >
    : > >>> : > In article <>,
    : > >>> : >
    : > >>> : > >
    : > >>> : > > >In article <>,
    : > >>> : > > >
    : > >>> : > > >> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 05:19:07 +0100, android <>
    : > >>> : > > >> wrote:
    : > >>> : > > >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >In article <>,
    : > >>> : > > >> >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> rOn Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:31:30 -0500, Tony Cooper
    : > >>> : > > >> >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>In article <>,
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>Tony
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>Cooper
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>wrote:
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Tony Cooper:
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > My only comment is "Why did you take it?".
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Normally, I'd critique an image only if I see
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > something good
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > and something that could be improved. I wouldn't
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > comment on
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > a photograph that has no redeeming value.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > But, here you've invited comments and even said
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > you
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > "worked"
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > on the post. I can't understand why you'd
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > bother.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Surely, there was some interesting photographable
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > scene
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > around that day. The camera may have passed your
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > test, but
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > the operator of the camera failed.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > Sandman:
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > Tony in a nutshell. He just can't stop at "Why did
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > you take it?", he has to lace the post with some
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > personal
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > insults as well. Why, otherwise he wouldn't be a
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > troll,
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > of
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > course!
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > Tony Cooper:
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > There's no insult to Android there.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > Sandman:
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > Your grasp on the English language is as loose as
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> > always.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> You are commenting on personal aspects, and the rest of
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> us
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> are
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> commenting on the photograph.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>> Who's the troll?
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>You are.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >> "but the operator of the camera failed."
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>Ad hominem, when he wanted comments on the photograph.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>Typical
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >>Tony.
    : > >>> : > > >> >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> That's not an ad hominem. It's a comment.
    : > >>> : > > >> >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> Ad hominems are used in argument, not the conclusion.
    : > >>> : > > >> >>
    : > >>> : > > >> >> http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
    : > >>> : > > >> >> "In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal
    : > >>> : > > >> >> abuse.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting
    : > >>> : > > >> >> to
    : > >>> : > > >> >> undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker
    : > >>> : > > >> >> instead of
    : > >>> : > > >> >> addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal
    : > >>> : > > >> >> attack
    : > >>> : > > >> >> does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for
    : > >>> : > > >> >> the
    : > >>> : > > >> >> purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the
    : > >>> : > > >> >> logical
    : > >>> : > > >> >> fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack
    : > >>> : > > >> >> someone;
    : > >>> : > > >> >> the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is
    : > >>> : > > >> >> also
    : > >>> : > > >> >> necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >An "ad hominem" comment is when there is an attempt to
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >divert
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >the
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >discussion with a negative and irrelevant personal comment.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >What you
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >have done is an almost classic example of this.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >My comments were about the photograph, and extensively so,
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >but
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >you
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >have snipped these to divert the discussion and included an
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >irrelevant
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >personal comment. Try looking up the term "ad hominem" so
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >you
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >will
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >not embarrass yourself further.
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >It's ironic for a post to contain both a comment about not
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >understanding a language and a misuse of language by the
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >same
    : > >>> : > > >> >> >person.
    : > >>> : > > >> >
    : > >>> : > > >> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
    : > >>> : > > >> >
    : > >>> : > > >>
    : > >>> : > > >> Yes, that's a good, if succinct, definition. The key words in
    : > >>> : > > >> that
    : > >>> : > > >> definition are "rather than". In other words, instead of
    : > >>> : > > >> providing
    : > >>> : > > >> a
    : > >>> : > > >> rebuttal to an argument, the person who employs the ad hominem
    : > >>> : > > >> route
    : > >>> : > > >> attacks the person in order to divert the discussion.
    : > >>> : > > >>
    : > >>> : > > >> A response that legitimately addresses the point of contention,
    : > >>> : > > >> and
    : > >>> : > > >> also contains an insult, is not an ad hominem response.
    : > >>> : > > >
    : > >>> : > > >Webster:
    : > >>> : > > >Definition of AD HOMINEM
    : > >>> : > > >1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    : > >>> : > > >2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather
    : > >>> : > > >than
    : > >>> : > > >by an answer to the contentions made
    : > >>> : > >
    : > >>> : > > These have that "rather than" again. The intellectual argument has
    : > >>> : > > been abandoned in favor of, or rather than, an attack to the
    : > >>> : > > emotions.
    : > >>> : > > For ad hominem to exist, there has to be a) a point of contention
    : > >>> : > > that
    : > >>> : > > calls for rebuttal, and b) an attempt to divert the discussion to
    : > >>> : > > something personal instead of, or rather than, providing a
    : > >>> : > > rebuttal.
    : > >>> : > >
    : > >>> : > > It's all about diversion. Instead of addressing your
    : > >>> : > > counter-argument, I'll call you names and divert the discussion to
    : > >>> : > > your character. That's an argumentum ad hominem.
    : > >>> : >
    : > >>> : > Now you've gone silly... The term comes from the latin and means
    : > >>> : > basically "personal attack". That's has not changed.
    : > >>> :
    : > >>> : 'fraid not. In Latin, "ad" is a preposition which can be translated as
    : > >>> : "toward", "to", "up to", or "in the direction of". "Hominem" is the
    : > >>> : accusative singular of "homo" or "person". "ad hominem" per se means
    : > >>> : simply "to the person", not "personal attack". "perferretque ad
    : > >>> : hominem" would be a message to the man for example--there is nothing in
    : > >>> : the phrase "ad hominem" that indicates any kind of attack. "Personal
    : > >>> : attack" would be more like "quod personaliter impetus".
    : > >>> :
    : > >>> : In the context of debate, "ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad
    : > >>> : hominem", which is an "argument to the man".
    : > >>>
    : > >>
    : > >> And that translates "personal attack".
    : > >
    : > > No, you are not attacking the person. There is a different Latin phrase
    : > > that means "personal attack". You are attacking the argument by citing
    : > > some irrelevant and possibly distasteful characteristic of the arguer.
    : > > "Going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement because von Braun was a
    : > > Nazi" would be an example of argumentum ad hominem. There is no
    : > > "attack" there. Von Braun _was_ a Nazi. The logical fallacy is that
    : > > his being a Nazi had some relation to the difficulty of going to the
    : > > Moon.
    : >
    : > That would be "begging the question" used correctly.
    : > < http://begthequestion.info >
    :
    : you do not understand the context. "Argument to man" instead of that
    : that is relevant to to the discourse >>> personal attack...
    :
    : You snippet it but here it is again...
    :
    : EOD

    IOW, when you say "EOD", it means that you claim an entitlement to have had
    the last word, and not merely that you've said all you intend to say on the
    subject. Point noted.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 5, 2014
    #77
  18. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 2014-01-05 13:44:29 +0000, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    :
    : > In article <>, says...
    : >>
    : >> In article <>,
    : >>
    : >>> : In article <>, says...
    : >>> : >
    : >>> : > In article <>,
    : >>> : >
    : >>> : > >
    : >>> : > > >In article <>,
    : >>> : > > >
    : >>> : > > >>
    : >>> : > > >> >In article <>,
    : >>> : > > >> >
    : >>> : > > >> >> rOn Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:31:30 -0500, Tony Cooper
    : >>> : > > >> >>
    : >>> : > > >> >> >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>In article <>, Tony
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>Cooper
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>wrote:
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Tony Cooper:
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > My only comment is "Why did you take it?".
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Normally, I'd critique an image only if I see
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > something good
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > and something that could be improved. I wouldn't
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > comment on
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > a photograph that has no redeeming value.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > But, here you've invited comments and even said you
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > "worked"
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > on the post. I can't understand why you'd bother.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > Surely, there was some interesting photographable
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > scene
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > around that day. The camera may have passed your
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > test, but
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > > the operator of the camera failed.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > Sandman:
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > Tony in a nutshell. He just can't stop at "Why did
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > you take it?", he has to lace the post with some
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > personal
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > insults as well. Why, otherwise he wouldn't be a troll,
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > of
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > > course!
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > Tony Cooper:
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > > There's no insult to Android there.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > Sandman:
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> > Your grasp on the English language is as loose as always.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>>
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> You are commenting on personal aspects, and the rest of us
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> are
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> commenting on the photograph.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>> Who's the troll?
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>You are.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>> : > > >> >> >> "but the operator of the camera failed."
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>Ad hominem, when he wanted comments on the photograph. Typical
    : >>> : > > >> >> >>Tony.
    : >>> : > > >> >>
    : >>> : > > >> >> That's not an ad hominem. It's a comment.
    : >>> : > > >> >>
    : >>> : > > >> >> Ad hominems are used in argument, not the conclusion.
    : >>> : > > >> >>
    : >>> : > > >> >> http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
    : >>> : > > >> >> "In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal
    : >>> : > > >> >> abuse.
    : >>> : > > >> >> Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to
    : >>> : > > >> >> undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker
    : >>> : > > >> >> instead of
    : >>> : > > >> >> addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal
    : >>> : > > >> >> attack
    : >>> : > > >> >> does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the
    : >>> : > > >> >> purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical
    : >>> : > > >> >> fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack
    : >>> : > > >> >> someone;
    : >>> : > > >> >> the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also
    : >>> : > > >> >> necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
    : >>> : > > >> >> >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >An "ad hominem" comment is when there is an attempt to divert
    : >>> : > > >> >> >the
    : >>> : > > >> >> >discussion with a negative and irrelevant personal comment.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >What you
    : >>> : > > >> >> >have done is an almost classic example of this.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >My comments were about the photograph, and extensively so, but
    : >>> : > > >> >> >you
    : >>> : > > >> >> >have snipped these to divert the discussion and included an
    : >>> : > > >> >> >irrelevant
    : >>> : > > >> >> >personal comment. Try looking up the term "ad hominem" so you
    : >>> : > > >> >> >will
    : >>> : > > >> >> >not embarrass yourself further.
    : >>> : > > >> >> >
    : >>> : > > >> >> >It's ironic for a post to contain both a comment about not
    : >>> : > > >> >> >understanding a language and a misuse of language by the same
    : >>> : > > >> >> >person.
    : >>> : > > >> >
    : >>> : > > >> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
    : >>> : > > >> >
    : >>> : > > >>
    : >>> : > > >> Yes, that's a good, if succinct, definition. The key words in that
    : >>> : > > >> definition are "rather than". In other words, instead of providing
    : >>> : > > >> a
    : >>> : > > >> rebuttal to an argument, the person who employs the ad hominem route
    : >>> : > > >> attacks the person in order to divert the discussion.
    : >>> : > > >>
    : >>> : > > >> A response that legitimately addresses the point of contention, and
    : >>> : > > >> also contains an insult, is not an ad hominem response.
    : >>> : > > >
    : >>> : > > >Webster:
    : >>> : > > >Definition of AD HOMINEM
    : >>> : > > >1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    : >>> : > > >2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather
    : >>> : > > >than
    : >>> : > > >by an answer to the contentions made
    : >>> : > >
    : >>> : > > These have that "rather than" again. The intellectual argument has
    : >>> : > > been abandoned in favor of, or rather than, an attack to the emotions.
    : >>> : > > For ad hominem to exist, there has to be a) a point of contention that
    : >>> : > > calls for rebuttal, and b) an attempt to divert the discussion to
    : >>> : > > something personal instead of, or rather than, providing a rebuttal.
    : >>> : > >
    : >>> : > > It's all about diversion. Instead of addressing your
    : >>> : > > counter-argument, I'll call you names and divert the discussion to
    : >>> : > > your character. That's an argumentum ad hominem.
    : >>> : >
    : >>> : > Now you've gone silly... The term comes from the latin and means
    : >>> : > basically "personal attack". That's has not changed.
    : >>> :
    : >>> : 'fraid not. In Latin, "ad" is a preposition which can be translated as
    : >>> : "toward", "to", "up to", or "in the direction of". "Hominem" is the
    : >>> : accusative singular of "homo" or "person". "ad hominem" per se means
    : >>> : simply "to the person", not "personal attack". "perferretque ad
    : >>> : hominem" would be a message to the man for example--there is nothing in
    : >>> : the phrase "ad hominem" that indicates any kind of attack. "Personal
    : >>> : attack" would be more like "quod personaliter impetus".
    : >>> :
    : >>> : In the context of debate, "ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad
    : >>> : hominem", which is an "argument to the man".
    : >>>
    : >>
    : >> And that translates "personal attack".
    : >
    : > No, you are not attacking the person. There is a different Latin phrase
    : > that means "personal attack". You are attacking the argument by citing
    : > some irrelevant and possibly distasteful characteristic of the arguer.
    : > "Going to the Moon wasn't much of an achievement because von Braun was
    : > a Nazi" would be an example of argumentum ad hominem. There is no
    : > "attack" there. Von Braun _was_ a Nazi. The logical fallacy is that
    : > his being a Nazi had some relation to the difficulty of going to the
    : > Moon.
    :
    : That would be "begging the question" used correctly.
    : < http://begthequestion.info >

    Actually, I don't think I believe that explanation of the meaning of the
    phrase. Note that the article provides no historical context for its support
    of what it calls the "traditional" usage.

    As we all know, the fact that a given position can be found on the Internet
    doesn't make it true.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 5, 2014
    #78
  19. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>,
    :
    : >
    : > >In article <>,
    : > >
    : > >>
    : > >> >In article <>,
    : > >> >
    : > >> >>
    : > >> >> >In article <>,
    : > >> >> >
    : > >> >> >> rOn Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:31:30 -0500, Tony Cooper
    : > >> >> >>
    : > >> >> >> >
    : > >> >> >> >>In article <>, Tony
    : > >> >> >> >>Cooper
    : > >> >> >> >>wrote:
    : > >> >> >> >>
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > Tony Cooper:
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > My only comment is "Why did you take it?".
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > >
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > Normally, I'd critique an image only if I see something
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > good
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > and something that could be improved. I wouldn't
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > comment on
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > a photograph that has no redeeming value.
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > >
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > But, here you've invited comments and even said you
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > "worked"
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > on the post. I can't understand why you'd bother.
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > >
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > Surely, there was some interesting photographable scene
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > around that day. The camera may have passed your test,
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > but
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > > the operator of the camera failed.
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > >
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > Sandman:
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > Tony in a nutshell. He just can't stop at "Why did
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > you take it?", he has to lace the post with some personal
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > insults as well. Why, otherwise he wouldn't be a troll, of
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > > course!
    : > >> >> >> >>> > >
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > Tony Cooper:
    : > >> >> >> >>> > > There's no insult to Android there.
    : > >> >> >> >>> >
    : > >> >> >> >>> > Sandman:
    : > >> >> >> >>> > Your grasp on the English language is as loose as always.
    : > >> >> >> >>>
    : > >> >> >> >>> You are commenting on personal aspects, and the rest of us are
    : > >> >> >> >>> commenting on the photograph.
    : > >> >> >> >>
    : > >> >> >> >>> Who's the troll?
    : > >> >> >> >>
    : > >> >> >> >>You are.
    : > >> >> >> >>
    : > >> >> >> >> "but the operator of the camera failed."
    : > >> >> >> >>
    : > >> >> >> >>Ad hominem, when he wanted comments on the photograph. Typical
    : > >> >> >> >>Tony.
    : > >> >> >>
    : > >> >> >> That's not an ad hominem. It's a comment.
    : > >> >> >>
    : > >> >> >> Ad hominems are used in argument, not the conclusion.
    : > >> >> >>
    : > >> >> >> http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
    : > >> >> >> "In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse.
    : > >> >> >> Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to
    : > >> >> >> undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead
    : > >> >> >> of
    : > >> >> >> addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack
    : > >> >> >> does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the
    : > >> >> >> purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical
    : > >> >> >> fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack
    : > >> >> >> someone;
    : > >> >> >> the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also
    : > >> >> >> necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
    : > >> >> >> >
    : > >> >> >> >An "ad hominem" comment is when there is an attempt to divert the
    : > >> >> >> >discussion with a negative and irrelevant personal comment. What
    : > >> >> >> >you
    : > >> >> >> >have done is an almost classic example of this.
    : > >> >> >> >
    : > >> >> >> >My comments were about the photograph, and extensively so, but you
    : > >> >> >> >have snipped these to divert the discussion and included an
    : > >> >> >> >irrelevant
    : > >> >> >> >personal comment. Try looking up the term "ad hominem" so you will
    : > >> >> >> >not embarrass yourself further.
    : > >> >> >> >
    : > >> >> >> >It's ironic for a post to contain both a comment about not
    : > >> >> >> >understanding a language and a misuse of language by the same
    : > >> >> >> >person.
    : > >> >> >
    : > >> >> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
    : > >> >> >
    : > >> >>
    : > >> >> Yes, that's a good, if succinct, definition. The key words in that
    : > >> >> definition are "rather than". In other words, instead of providing a
    : > >> >> rebuttal to an argument, the person who employs the ad hominem route
    : > >> >> attacks the person in order to divert the discussion.
    : > >> >>
    : > >> >> A response that legitimately addresses the point of contention, and
    : > >> >> also contains an insult, is not an ad hominem response.
    : > >> >
    : > >> >Webster:
    : > >> >Definition of AD HOMINEM
    : > >> >1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    : > >> >2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than
    : > >> >by an answer to the contentions made
    : > >>
    : > >> These have that "rather than" again. The intellectual argument has
    : > >> been abandoned in favor of, or rather than, an attack to the emotions.
    : > >> For ad hominem to exist, there has to be a) a point of contention that
    : > >> calls for rebuttal, and b) an attempt to divert the discussion to
    : > >> something personal instead of, or rather than, providing a rebuttal.
    : > >>
    : > >> It's all about diversion. Instead of addressing your
    : > >> counter-argument, I'll call you names and divert the discussion to
    : > >> your character. That's an argumentum ad hominem.
    : > >
    : > >Now you've gone silly... The term comes from the latin and means
    : > >basically "personal attack". That's has not changed.
    : > >
    :
    : You snippet the
    :
    : >>EOD

    When you spell "snipped" wrong once, it's a typo and you get a pass. When you
    do it three times, you'd better go look it up. "Snippet" is an entirely
    different word and isn't even a verb.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 5, 2014
    #79
  20. android

    J. Clarke Guest

    What wuold be "begging the question"? Claiming that von Braun was a
    Nazi when there is no evidence to support that contention would be
    "begging the question". Trivializing his technical achievements because
    he was a Nazi is argumentum ad hominem.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 5, 2014
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.