* If I had said, "this group of people are contemptible idiots and therefore their arguments are wrong," that would have been ad hominem. What I said was, "the arguments of this group of people are fallacious and therefore wrong, and relying on that method of argument makes them contemptible idiots." In other words, the judgment "contemptible idiot" was a conclusion, and not the basis on which some other conclusion was reached.
* Your example is totally irrelevant, because it does not contain any argument whatsoever. It contains two statements, neither of which is presented as a reason for believing the other.
* Tactically, if you were engaged in debate, and you resulted in insults or ad hominem arguments, and the other side didn't know how to cope with them, you might "win" the confrontation. But if I were listening, you would do nothing to convince me that your opponent was wrong, nor to persuade me to adopt your position, because you would not have offered a reasoned argument. Indeed, if anything, I would conclude that you were not interested in establishing the truth, but only in winning by fair means or foul, which would decrease your credibility in my eyes.
* And besides, your opponent might be onto your tricks, and then you would be pwned like T. H. Huxley pwned the bishop.
* In any case, I was originally commenting to nancylebov, whom I took to be engaged not in debate or political point scoring but in reflective conversation. My point, which she took with good grace, was that the use of a hostile epithet for an entire political movement did not strike me as serving her basic purpose, nor give me a good impression of her. Given her response, I will credit her with its being no more than a momentary lapse in civility; I am less prepared to credit you with the same.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2010-03-20 12:33 am (UTC)* Your example is totally irrelevant, because it does not contain any argument whatsoever. It contains two statements, neither of which is presented as a reason for believing the other.
* Tactically, if you were engaged in debate, and you resulted in insults or ad hominem arguments, and the other side didn't know how to cope with them, you might "win" the confrontation. But if I were listening, you would do nothing to convince me that your opponent was wrong, nor to persuade me to adopt your position, because you would not have offered a reasoned argument. Indeed, if anything, I would conclude that you were not interested in establishing the truth, but only in winning by fair means or foul, which would decrease your credibility in my eyes.
* And besides, your opponent might be onto your tricks, and then you would be pwned like T. H. Huxley pwned the bishop.
* In any case, I was originally commenting to