Fallacy of Relevance

[frizzlefry]

Fallacy Name - Abusive ad hominem
aka
Insults
Personal Attacks

The most common and well known version of the ad hominem fallacy is just a simple insult, and is called the abusive ad hominem. It occurs whenever a person has given up attempting to persuade a person or an audience about the reasonable of a position and is now resorting to mere personal attacks.

Whenever you see personal attacks and abusive ad hominem arguments being used in a discussion, it is unlikely that anything productive will come out of it in the end. A person who can only make their case by attacking others probably doesn't have much of case to begin with.

Instead of showing where the people have made an error in any of their statements, the arguer simply attacks them for who they are, and claims that we can dismiss anything said without even considering it. But in neither case is this objectionable fact related to the topic at hand especially when these "objectionable" facts are just plain insults.

The proper way to evaluate the merits of an argument is by looking at what the argument says, not by distracting people's attention from the argument by insulting the person and then, unreasonably, concluding that your insult is a good reason to dismiss the argument.

Unfortunately, abusive ad hominems can be very effective, because they do indeed divert people's attention away from the primary issue being debated. By making someone appear suspicious, ridiculous, or just inconsistent, people will start focusing on that rather than anything else. What's more, once people get suspicious of a person, it can be difficult for them to stop.

 

[ak-zaaf]

this is the internet.
normal rules don't apply

 

[Anonymous]

Here is your problem, the basic premise of the main subject of confrontation on this and other cycling forums is disagreed upon by many of the parties involved. Without there being any common ground, there can be no effective debate; therefore, the debate will center on "personal" issues inherently.

Take global warming/climate change. If two people begin a discussion of the subject, but one believes temperatures are rising and the other does not, they have no common ground and will therefore have no basis for altering the opinion of the other. Their debate will keep running into the same wall, and in the absence of either ceasing to debate, they will naturally form arguments about the other person's reasons for not agreeing on the common premise.

Now, if both people acknowledge that temperatures are rising, they simply disagree on the cause, then you can have a debate.

Now, that isn't to say that there are people who are in the middle, or just don't care. Those people are capable of discussion with each other side. There are many such people here.

I think it is clear on which side of the main topic I fall. I generally only differ strongly with those who deny any credence to the side on which I reside. Generally, people who strongly believe in the other position will strongly disagree with me and react strongly because I give no credence to their basic premise.

Good luck changing that.

 

[frizzlefry]

this is the internet.
normal rules don't apply

I was unaware that the advancement of technology was an excuse to act like children.

 

[dgodave]

Fallacy Name - Abusive ad hominem
aka
Insults
Personal Attacks

The most common and well known version of the ad hominem fallacy....

Except what youre calling an ad-hom is not even typically intended to advance an argument. Its just an insult for its own sake... and therefore not a logical fallacy, but just plain malice.
.

 

[ak-zaaf]

I was unaware that the advancement of technology was an excuse to act like children.

then this must be the first internet forum you visited

 

[ingsve]

this is the internet.
normal rules don't apply

It's by accepting that premise that we deteriorate the possibility of a constructive debate. Just because alot of people on the internet can't act civilized doesn't mean that everyone automatically have to accept that same premise. Thre are plenty of places on the internet where intelligent and thoughtfull debate exists without deteriorating into childlike mudslinging.

 

[Anonymous]

It's by accepting that premise that we deteriorate the possibility of a constructive debate. Just because alot of people on the internet can't act civilized doesn't mean that everyone automatically have to accept that same premise. Thre are plenty of places on the internet where intelligent and thoughtfull debate exists without deteriorating into childlike mudslinging.

Yea, and those places have on common trait, they are boring.

 

[frizzlefry]

then this must be the first internet forum you visited

Nope, it just seems like cycling forums are a breed apart.

 

[Anonymous]

Nope, it just seems like cycling forums are a breed apart.

Then you DEFINITELY haven't cruised any political forums or sports like NFL or college basketball. Sorry, this place is just like most forums.

 

[frizzlefry]

Then you DEFINITELY haven't cruised any political forums or sports like NFL or college basketball. Sorry, this place is just like most forums.

Wrong, I am a member of Sean Hannity's forums and 4 or 5 high school football forums located in Texas. While they often have the same problem, it is put to a stop pretty quick.

 

[frizzlefry]

I got banned from the LSU Tigers forum when they played UT in the College World Series cause some guy made fun of UT's slogan "Hookem Horns". I in turn made fun of LSU's slogan "Geaux" and was perma banned. That is baby crap compared to what happens on this site.

 

[frizzlefry]

I said they should change their slogan from "Geaux" to "HeauxMeaux". That isnt bad at all. Just some good natured jabbing, but I got banned for it.

 

[fatandfast]

Friz this site is pretty tame. The insult ratios are pretty low. Most posters get their racing/racer info from the same half dozen sources with a strong lean toward national favorites. Nothing so abnormal. The bad part of most racing sites is that very few people know much about racing and tend to lean torward the tabloid part of the sport. A rider is guilty until further notice just because some guy with cable TV says so based on a teaspoon of data and even less knowledge of how elite level racing works. These posts go from cycling caused global warming to an obvious scandal at Livestrong's accounting office. It is so unfortunate that racing is discussed so little and the paparzzi aspect of cycling is beaten to death. Much of what is published on this site is really good and keeps you in the general know, what is discussed in the forums is garbage posted by bitter non racers who are just mad.. about everything. If you are willing to sift through the hack insults there are lots of diamonds within the piles of mud. Every tenth post has something to do with racing. You will leave this site thinking most people work in a lab looking at blood samples of elite athletes.

 

[Anonymous]

shouldnt this be in general?

 

[elapid]

Friz this site is pretty tame. The insult ratios are pretty low. Most posters get their racing/racer info from the same half dozen sources with a strong lean toward national favorites. Nothing so abnormal. The bad part of most racing sites is that very few people know much about racing and tend to lean torward the tabloid part of the sport. A rider is guilty until further notice just because some guy with cable TV says so based on a teaspoon of data and even less knowledge of how elite level racing works. These posts go from cycling caused global warming to an obvious scandal at Livestrong's accounting office. It is so unfortunate that racing is discussed so little and the paparzzi aspect of cycling is beaten to death. Much of what is published on this site is really good and keeps you in the general know, what is discussed in the forums is garbage posted by bitter non racers who are just mad.. about everything. If you are willing to sift through the hack insults there are lots of diamonds within the piles of mud. Every tenth post has something to do with racing. You will leave this site thinking most people work in a lab looking at blood samples of elite athletes.

Who's bitter? We all ride, most of us race, and there was plenty of discussion regarding racing a few weeks ago. Yes, the professionals are racing now but none of these races are televised and so it is near impossible to comment on anything but the results. That's why there is little discussion on racing at the moment, except the never ending Lance saga which is perpetuated by both sides ad nauseum.

Most posters in the Clinic Forum, except for the obvious like BigBoat, are either experts (Krebs Cycle) or people trying to educate themselves. The latter readily admit their knowledge level and make no aspersions otherwise.

 

[BroDeal]

Wrong, I am a member of Sean Hannity's forums

LOL. This explains so much.

No Positives.

 

[frizzlefry]

LOL. This explains so much.

No Positives.

LOL, nope wrong answer.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

Yeah, this forum is fairly tame, and often entertaining and informative. There are the usual cadre of forum bullies who need to be heard on EVERY topic and who get down, dirty and personal and often a thread will degrade into an eighth grade girls hissing match, but all in all compared to some conspiracy theory forums I monitor for research, this forum is pretty focused on cycling. When I see a few of the forum bullies posting, I usually just ignore the thread because I can bank on what the outcome will be.