|
Tiggum posted:Does what? You know, privacy curtains. God, what a nerd.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Strudel Man posted:But it's a statement about the actual argument, not the person. It's a statement about the argument, but not of the argument. It doesn't address any points made.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Inco posted:It's a statement about the argument, but not of the argument. It doesn't address any points made. an argument is not a hominid
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:an argument is not a hominid The implicit message behind it is consistently "how can we believe you when you use ad hominems?", attacking the character of the arguer over the content of the argument itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
I made up Uncle Bob and his racism. Its a straw man, you dummy. <--- (ad hominem)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Plom Bar posted:The implicit message behind it is consistently "how can we believe you when you use ad hominems?", attacking the character of the arguer over the content of the argument itself. No, it literally does not belong to the family Hominidae.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
I think the term y'all are looking for is non sequitur. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Yeah you're right
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
This entire derail is an ad hominem deus ex machina lingua franca fart Am I latining correctly? edit: LoB, we need you. PizzaProwler has a new favorite as of 04:01 on Jun 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
The ladies love it when I tell them about my incredible antivirus software
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
CainsDescendant posted:This is my state senator. I represent my costituents, except the ones I don't like they can gently caress right the hell off
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
I've never seen a person who knows less about computers than this person. E: And I've legit seen a computer part explode, all that happens is a bit of white-hot metal kicks off something somewhere and all the lights in your house dim for a split second.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/871128313749745664
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:I don't understand the logic of people who post this stuff. I think it's really just that they honestly believe they're not racist / homophobic / whatever. They sincerely believe that gay people would just teach kids to be gay (using your example) because that's what gay people do. They don't hate the gays, they just don't want them teaching their kids to be gay. To them it's completely logical and there's no way it could be problematic; I don't want my kid to be gay because I want grandkids, so I don't want gays teaching my kid. They never consider the fact that they're making a massive prejudiced assumption, because of course the gays will teach kids to be gay! So then when they see someone call them homophobic because of that, they see that person just name-calling instead of actually arguing. To them it's not homophobic at all, it's just the right thing to do. You can also probably replace "gays teaching kids" with any given thing that these kinda people argue against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:i know it's a joke and this is pedantic as gently caress but i am a goon. The bible actually says that the wine jesus made at the wedding was the good poo poo, like so good it improved the husband's father in law's opinion of him because he brought out the good wine in the second half of the party. Thank you. I didn't want to be the one to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I think it's really just that they honestly believe they're not racist / homophobic / whatever. They sincerely believe that gay people would just teach kids to be gay (using your example) because that's what gay people do. They don't hate the gays, they just don't want them teaching their kids to be gay. To them it's completely logical and there's no way it could be problematic; I don't want my kid to be gay because I want grandkids, so I don't want gays teaching my kid. They never consider the fact that they're making a massive prejudiced assumption, because of course the gays will teach kids to be gay! So then when they see someone call them homophobic because of that, they see that person just name-calling instead of actually arguing. To them it's not homophobic at all, it's just the right thing to do. You are right, but I would also add, that these people know that being 'homophobic', 'racist', etc. are bad things to be. But they also truly believe that , to use your example. a gay teacher will teach their students to be gay and is more likely to be a paedophile. They truly believe this. But because they know that they themselves are good people, and that being homophobic is a bad thing, then therefore that belief is not homophobic. And so when someone calls them homophobic, all they hear is that someone just called them an insult, which can't be true because as said before they know themselves to be good people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
YA BOY ETHAN COUCH posted:The ladies love it when I tell them about my incredible antivirus software I wanted to make a joke about condoms, but they're really more hard-wear 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
This might be the opposite of idiots on social media? Anyway, click through to this thread where people think up more and more elaborate ways in which Rep. Maxine Waters must have assaulted Michael Tracy to elicit the response he's had to her shoving he hand out of her face. https://twitter.com/zandywithaz/status/871218166868746240
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
 http://imgur.com/gallery/y4in9
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Everyone about to jump up and post about how you don't like social media either: YOU'RE ON SOCIAL MEDIA RIGHT NOW. Or is this anti-social media?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:Everyone about to jump up and post about how you don't like social media either: YOU'RE ON SOCIAL MEDIA RIGHT NOW. All media is anti-social now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Plom Bar posted:The implicit message behind it is consistently "how can we believe you when you use ad hominems?", attacking the character of the arguer over the content of the argument itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I'm pretty sure the explicit message is that an ad hominem is not a persuasive argument. Of course you would say that. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:Everyone about to jump up and post about how you don't like social media either: YOU'RE ON SOCIAL MEDIA RIGHT NOW. It feels like an argument a goon would make. Although I find it hilarious that all the anti-social nerds I saw in schools growing up are now anti-social adults with jobs. It really reminds me of that kid who'd go "Well I don't watch TV because it's too dumb for me" but watches anime and plays bad video games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Of course you would say that. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:HOW COULD YOU They don't call me Absurd Adhominem for nothing. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I'm pretty sure the explicit message is that an ad hominem is not a persuasive argument. Well, I got news for ya from the Psychology department: Most people do not give a single solitary poo poo about persuasive arguments. Folks'll swear up and down that they do, but the vast, vast majority of people are far more persuaded by charisma and showmanship. The accusation of "You're using an ad hominem" is most frequently used as argumentum ad logicam, or the bad reasons fallacy. To accuse some one of an ad hominem without also logically demonstrating how the use said ad hominem invalidates the conclusion is also a fallacious argument, and frequently lobbied as an attack against the arguer's character, i.e. "You're too stupid to argue properly". But Lord Holy Christ Almighty gently caress Me Sideways, we are so far removed from the point of whatever we were previously talking about because as soon as some one starts lobbing around logical fallacy accusations every discussion becomes one great big pissing contest over who stayed awake the longest in Philosophy 101.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:I made up Uncle Bob and his racism. That's not an ad hominem that's just an insult. Which can be a perfectly valid conclusion to an argument, if you can show that they are in fact a dummy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
She talks about London Bridge falling down, but she ain't a fair lady.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
Maximum Sexy Pigeon posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
Katie Hopkins and Milo are converging
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
CainsDescendant posted:This is my state senator. How did we get to this point, where our representatives act like this? Serious question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:How did we get to this point, where our representatives act like this? Serious question. Well it all started when North America was colonized by literally the most terrible religious crazies available in Britain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Nice ✊👍ad 😈😈😈 hominem 🙅♂️🙅♀️🙅♂️🙅♀️attack👊🔫🔪💣 👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌🤳
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Dammit I was just going to post this! It's on the front page of Imgur right now with the title "Schneider gets it".
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I think it's really just that they honestly believe they're not racist / homophobic / whatever. Something to add to this: for a long time, social media was dominated by leftist ideals, and expression of discriminating views was usually quickly piled upon by disapproving reactions. Now that everyone who has a phone is on the internet, there's a lot more voices speaking out said discriminating views, and the people holding those views feel emboldened and strengthened in their position: "hey, Bob and Jenny thinks gays don't deserve basic human rights either, guess my opinion's not so unpopular after all. Time to double down!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This might be the opposite of idiots on social media? Anyway, click through to this thread where people think up more and more elaborate ways in which Rep. Maxine Waters must have assaulted Michael Tracy to elicit the response he's had to her shoving he hand out of her face. Similarly: https://twitter.com/theshrillest/status/871210802455265280
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
"When I speak to my fellow millionaires on the large farm Adam Sandler bought us all so we could run free..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I'm pretty sure the explicit message is that an ad hominem is not a persuasive argument. No, it's not a logical argument. People are persuaded by it all the time because they don't care about arguments that would score high on a debate team.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 15:58
|
|