RE: STEEM: The Disproportionate Power Balance with Downvotes

[logiczombie]

(1) Please provide an example of an ad hominem attack that is NOT an insult.

(2) Please provide an example of an insult that is NOT an ad hominem attack.

Comments

[logiczombie]

Equally an Ad hominem that isn't an insult when it is True

Citation please.

[logiczombie]

So, if someone says, "I think you're a lying dog-faced pony-soldier", that's NOT an ad hominem attack in your opinion because it's "TRUE" (that person is presumably sincere)??

[logiczombie]

...and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,

The key problem here is that character is QUALITATIVE (GNOSIS).

The other key problem here is that motives are QUALITATIVE (GNOSIS).

And you seem to be glossing-over the point that even your source specifies "in SOme instances" (probably when the question tautologically involves questions of "character" and or "motive", of course under those conditions "character" and or "motive" would necessarily be relevant). HOWever, "character" and "motive" are both beyond our epistemological limits (un-quantifiable, self-reported, implicit, subconscious).

And your bald assertion that an ad hominem attack is not fallacious if it's "true" is not supported by any of your quoted sources.

[logiczombie]

The key problem here is that character is QUALITATIVE

Why is that a problem?

Because there is no way to QUANTIFY "character".

And without QUANTIFICATION there is no way to verify a claim's "TRUTH-VALUE".

[logiczombie]

...it's not Fallacious if it is true, as the last quote explains.

Your quote "explains" no such thing.

It simply asserts that in SOME cases, presumably if the subject at hand is specifically about a person's history and or personal choices, data relevant to such an inquiry CANNOT be considered off-limits.

HOweVer, I can't imagine a case where a person's history and or personal choices would be a subject of scrutiny wholly divorced from any explicit or implicit attack or endorsement of their abilities and or ideas WHOLESALE.

A "positive" ad hominem is just as fallacious as a "negative" ad hominem.

You shouldn't believe someone just because they're a doctor.

You shouldn't disbelieve someone just because they're a commie.

[logiczombie]

I agree, claims should be examined by themselves

Well that's encouraging.

It explains that an ad hominem isn't fallacious if the position the other has implicates their character/ motivations etc.

The only "problem" being that you can never know "their character" or "motivations" etc, due to your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS.

And even the most morally repulsive, malevolent person can still make a perfectly valid logically sound statement.

Their moral repulsiveness and malevolence do not magically invalidate their logic.