this first three are interchangable, as are the bottom three. there's no call for it to be ranked pyramid.
they are all worded poorly. Contradiction with supporting evidence is refutation. name-calling is an ad hominen attack. "Explicitly" is a redundant adverb, you would hardly refute something implicitly. "using quotes" is just stupid. Does it mean citation? The point of an argument is to establish truth so there is no additional merit as to whether you dispute the "central point" rather than a peripheral one. You oppose what you feel is false.
If you're making an "opposing case", it is more than contradiction, which only needs a claim that your opponent is wrong. The use of "case" implies substance.
All in all it's just a banal, poorly thought-out gif of the type somebody might post on facebook and feel unmeritted smugness, and the act of posting it as a riposte makes the poster guilty of the very sin that this inessential pyramid failing attempts to condemn; that of bad, shallow argument
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 17 Aug 2018, 6:37,
Reply)
bit late to try and appear all above it given what you've already blathered on this post alone
you asked me what was wrong with your gif. it turns out to be quite a lot, I'd consider not using it again.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 17 Aug 2018, 7:57,
Reply)
I think you've got your users fuckmuddled
(
Fadgebadger Sweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Fri 17 Aug 2018, 8:42,
Reply)
ah, yes
still, I really hate that gif. Also people saying things like "strawman fallacy", usually misapplied. both these things are enough to prod me out of my stupor
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 17 Aug 2018, 12:33,
Reply)
I disagree
Ad Hom isn't name-calling. A lot of people seem to think it is, but there's other ways to argue based on the person. For example, I guess it's understandable that you don't understand this because you've not studied Latin.
Responding to the person's argument is clearly not ad hom, by definition, so not interchangeable, as you claimed.
"Contradiction with supporting evidence is refutation" - I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there, because the pyramid talks about contradiction withOUT supporting evidence. And that, BTW, was an example of using quotes; it's not so stupid.
(, Fri 17 Aug 2018, 14:54, Reply)
name-calling is ad hominen, ffs
ad hominen means "to the person", so for example, calling somebody "a thick pretentious fuckwit who thinks that his public school latin gives him some sort of intellectual gravitas inevident in his discourse" would be both name calling and also an ad homoinen attack directed "to the person". to put them in seperate categories is redundant
As to your second point, I was refering to the definition for counter argument above which states "contraction with supporting evidence" which is also a good description of Refutation, as I said. It's a pointless pyramid designed only to impress the intellectually bereft
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 17 Aug 2018, 15:40,
Reply)
Here's some Latin. Engaging with this stupid fucking cunt is infra dig. Stop wasting your time mate.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 17 Aug 2018, 16:03,
Reply)
It really isn't.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a Boris Johnson wrote an article saying MP salaries should be increased, you could respond "Of course he would say that. He's an MP."
That wouldn't refute his argument, but it is at least relevant.
(, Fri 17 Aug 2018, 16:04, Reply)
Name calling is a form of ad hominem.
And is probably the weakest form.
(, Fri 17 Aug 2018, 18:28, Reply)