How dare you!

[bernmarx]

How dare you start a new community!?! Don't you know that anyone who wants to start any community that isn't polyamory is a whiny self-obsessed complainer? And did you see who the moderator is! It's someone I don't personally like! OMG! And there's someone in my room with a gun to my head forcing me to join EVERY POLY COMMUNITY ON LJ -- SO I HAVE NO CHOICE!

Comments

[bernmarx]

Mm-hm.

[kwanboa]

The flirting isn't working again, symposiarch...we never bring out our Latin on the first comment.

[bernmarx]

Abnegatum sum!

[bernmarx]

You say he shouldn't run a community because he has anger problems, and you can't see the ad hominem?

The fallacy of "ad hominem," despite what you may have learned from l33t t33nz on the Internet, doesn't just mean using naughty words about someone.

"Tu quoque" is ENTIRELY about, "Well, so-and-so does X, so he has no right chastising others for doing X." Which is what you did.

[bernmarx]

I'm unconvinced whether this expansion is pre hoc or post hoc.

Plus I just want to use some more Latin because it turns kwanboa off. :D

[bernmarx]

Poly_scott hasn't said he has every right to have an anger control problem; he's just done less to control it than some people think he should. So yeah, it's "more like" the latter than the former, but it's not identical to the latter. 90% there, I'd say.

[alextiefling]

'Ad hominem' is not just a logical fallacy, although you may have seen it catalogued on authoritative-looking pages as such. It's also a bona fide piece of Latin used to indicate any instance of 'playing the man and not the ball', whether in logical debate or not. The concept of 'logical fallacies' is a simple crib-sheet to give fancy classical names and labels to flaws in argumentation which, as products of human frailty, defy reasonable classification.

The 'ad hominem' method is only wrong when the intent is to provide some kind of reasoned rebuttal of the other person's position - rather than just stirring things up, or indicating something truthful, and more than passingly relevant, about the identity or character of the other person. Vide supra and see what community this is.

You will not impress others with the size of your membrum virilis simply by being caught in flagrante delicto with Latin tags, et hoc genus omne, which you have scavenged from the obiter dicta of sundry plebs on the 'net. :-p

[bernmarx]

Your final sentiment is mutual. Don't assume you know my intentions, and I won't assume I know yours.

[alextiefling]

Touché.

(I'm not sure how to say that in Latin.)

[bernmarx]

Tactus? :)

[bluecurious]

not idiomatic enough.

[leora]

That wasn't an ad hominem attack. That was a discussion of qualifications for a role. An ad hominem attack would be to say that he's wrong about his stance on abortion rights (whatever his stance may be) because he has anger management issues. There's a huge difference.

You can say that I shouldn't be a taxi driver because I'm legally blind, and that's not an ad hominem attack. It's also true.