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)