Important Difference
Important Difference
29 comments
-
-
"shit-for-brains" kinda discredits any and all arguments though doesn't it?
-
Technically not, since a lack of intelligence doesn't necessarily imply that something said by a given person is wrong (else an unintelligent person could make things more likely to be wrong by saying something, or would be unable to say that thing if it is true.)
-
The bonus panel explains why it doesn't.
-
Oh I forgot to open the page to see it, thanks for the reminder 😅
-
-
-
The sequel to https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/phenom we have all been waiting for
-
"strawman"
does not eleborate further, thinks they won, leaves
-
How to win debates on the Internet 101.
In 201, you learn how to do it with more Latin.
-
-
why doesn't the guy on the right have any ears
-
The shit would leak
-
-
First of all, I’m a fucking shit for brains idiot. Second of all, presents highly intelligent nuanced opinion.
-
I feel this argument applies in many situations
-
I stand forever enlightened
-
Further, the fallacy fallacy states that even if you did it doesn't make the other side "the automatic winner because the other guy was mean."
-
I thought that was the "neener neener" fallacy
-
-
-
But an insult is not an argument. And he himself calls it an argument, implying that he is trying to discredit, thereby making it ad hominem.
-
29 comments
Even if it’s not an attack of their argument, and is stated simply as a fact, a personal attack does still work to discredit the opponent to any audience, and can therefore be considered a fallacious ad hominem tactic.
It’s basically poisoning the well. Even though you’re not explicitly saying it, the audience will infer that someone who can justifiably be described as “shit for brains” should not be trusted on the relevant topic. Even someone profoundly stupid can be right, and even someone incredibly intelligent can be wrong.
That being said, even if someone has been viciously personally attacked, if the attacker has otherwise proved their argument wrong, that’s what truly matters. It does definitely make me think less of someone if they constantly personally attack their opponent, though.
I wonder if it can be ad hominem if it's a personal attack that technically bolsters your opponent's argument. For example, if you're debating a scientist about some scientific subject, and you call them an egghead or a nerd. I think it still counts.