Background:
In this post we have this exchange:
Box asks Tinitinnid whether there is a difference between a Lego castle and a random pile of Legos.
In comment 124 Tintinnid says that a pile of Legos randomly strewn across the floor is the same as a Lego castle.
Let us take up the thread here:
BKA @ 125:
Box, let it go. When someone says something as staggeringly stupid as the comment in 124 there is literally no sense trying to argue with them. They have proved they are beyond the reach of rationale argument.
I am accused of making an ad hominem attack against Tintinnid.
StephenB takes up the issue @ 128
You don’t understand. An ad hominem attack is an irrelevant attack on a person. It is not a relevant attack on a statement.
Tintinnid @ 131:
StephenB, thank you for correcting me. Calling someone’s statement staggeringly stupid is not technically a personal attack, although the tone is certainly beyond rude.
Daniel King @ 132:
Right, “staggeringly stupid” is an insult to the person who made the statement, not an ad hominem. And it has the merit of being irrefutable by the recipient.
My comment at 125, as StephenB observes, is not an ad hominem attack. Let’s see why:
Wikipedia describes an ad hominem attack as follows:
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing
Assume that someone says “the moon is made of green cheese” and then refuses to back off of that statement no matter how much evidence and logic is adduced to counter it. His statement is staggeringly stupid and he is clinging to his irrationality.
There is such a thing as clinging to irrationality, and pointing out that someone is clinging to irrationality and is therefore immune to rational argument is an observation about the fact that they are clinging to irrationality. It is not an attack on their person. Therefore, Daniel King is wrong and Tintinnid is right; it is not an ad hominem attack.
Daniel King goes on to say that my statement is “irrefutable” by Tintinnid. Wrong again. If someone says the moon is made of green cheese and I say that statement is “staggeringly stupid,” they can refute my statement by demonstrating that the moon is indeed made of green cheese (or at the very least there is good reason to believe so). Similarly, if Tintinnid can demonstrate (rather than merely assert) that there is warrant for believing that a random pile of Legos is no different than a Lego castle, then he will have refuted my statement.
Finally, Tintinnid characterizes my statement as “beyond rude.” Let’s think about that. If someone says something that is indeed staggeringly stupid is it rude to point it out? Of course not. My purpose in making the statement is not to be rude. My purpose is to attempt to shame Tintinnid out of his irrationality. I am not hopeful that I will be successful given his track record here, but at least I am trying. If I am successful in shaming him out of his irrationality, I will have achieved my purpose and helped him. Therefore, far from being rude, my comment was made for the purpose of helping him do better. As KF often says in the vernacular of the islands, “ya can do better mon.” Exhorting Tintinnid to do better is not rude; it is kind. And has Hamlet famously said, “I must be cruel only to be kind.”
UPDATE. It has been brought to my attention that I attributed E.Seigner’s staggeringly stupid comment at 124 in the referenced thread to Tintinnid. I regret the error.
Barry, claiming that a person is incapable of rational thought based on one comment is definitely an ad hominem attack because you are assuming that a person who makes one stupid statement is not capable of rational thought. This is obviously wrong. But we know that Barry could never be wrong.
If someone makes a false statement that is easily verified, are they a liar or just staggeringly stupid? I will let you think it over while you verify the source of the Lego comment.
One can imagine a thread moderator for Uncommon Descent is able to write whatever comes to mind, yet one can also imagine that leading a discussion suggests decorum. Using pejoratives, such as staggering stupid, does not lead discussion nor foster open discourse. After reading this thread and the referenced thread, Arrington has demonstrated nothing concerning the merits of a discussion on intelligent design and randomness. And then imposing self-defense arguments to justify pejoratives is quite simply sad for UD visitors interested in intelligent design discussions.
Possibly, I do not understand the approach of UD moderators or proponents of intelligent design. And possibly I am out of touch with 21st century logical discourse. If so, I apologize and will find another venue for understanding ID.
I would point out that a classic ad hominem attack is unrelated to the central point of the argument. That is, X says, “The moon is made of green cheese.” And Y replies, “Do you deny that you were fined for overdue library books?”
On the other hand, simply dismissing any statement in a debate as not worthy of a serious response breaks the rules of debate. If refuting the statement is simple, then Y should always state the counter evidence in order to score any points.
And so, no, random Legos are not the same as a Lego castle. I have a 2-year old granddaughter who has discovered Legos and has a fantastic vocabulary. And when she says, “I’m building a castle”, she in fact takes Legos scattered randomly on the floor and stacks them into things that can arguably be called “walls”. She hasn’t quite figured out how to build a foundation with interlocked corners, but if I give her such a foundation, she readily stacks the randomly scattered blocks on top of the foundation. So even in her 2-year old mind, a “castle” has a pattern and an organization. And she NEVER confuses her castle with the randomly scattered Legos.
Now I’m also sure that when she was 1 and had no idea what “castle” meant, she would gleefully dump Legos on the floor and mumble some version of “castle” to announce her achievement of dumping the box.
But this just reinforces the great wisdom that you can call a stick a horse, but you can’t ride it to London.
Mahuna, so are you saying that commenting that someone’s statement is staggeringly stupid and that the person making the statement is not capable of rational thought is not an ad hominem? I think it is but I can accept that some people may think that it is not.
But, Is it rude? Is it uncalled for? Is it an acceptable means of discourse for someone who is supposed to be an adult? Is it an acceptable tone for the moderator of a web site that purports to serve the ID community to take? Please let me know because the answer will speak volumes for UD and, by extension, the ID movement.
Readers still seem to be struggling with the meaning of an ad hominem argument. It is not putting a label on someone, however rude that label appear to be. It is an attempt to argue on the basis of that label. Hence, the term ad hominem argument. Accordingly, an ad hominem argument can be deceptively and quietly subtle or it can be heavily laden with offensive rhetoric.
I suppose the most patient thing to do is provide evidence refuting Tintinnid’s unsupported assertion.
1. There are the same number of blocks in either case.
2. The materials are identical.
3. The location and arrangement is different in type:
a. It can demonstrated that blocks scattered across the floor are located at random distances, angles, and faces up.
b. It can likewise be demonstrated that the blocks assembled into a structure are at regular distances, angles, and faces up. However, this can also be true of crystal lattices, which the blocks are not, but
c. The functional and recognizable pattern of blocks in a castle can be verified by inspection. However, this conclusion can be challenged once enough blocks are removed and the arrangement is no longer recognizable as part of a castle.
But . . .
Writing such tedious descriptions to answer short, unsupported assertions seems like a fool’s errand, so I propose that it’s appropriate when someone does not offer any support for an assertion simply to deny it. For example
Tintinnid: ” . . . a pile of Legos randomly strewn across the floor is the same as a Lego castle.”
Another person: “No, they’re not at all the same.”
The burden to support an assertion is on the person making it, not the recipient.
-Q
Of course it is, if you don’t spell out your reasons for making that pejorative, so the perpetrator can formulate a sensible response. Indeed, if anyone wants to have a productive discussion or debate, pejoratives don’t contribute light, only heat.
I’m amazed that anyone would try to justify rudeness in discussion, as Barry, StephenB, and others here are trying to do. If that’s the kind of conduct you want to associate with ID, it is your privilege.
Of course, rudeness is in the eye of the beholder, but so are what you might call stupidity and irrationality.
Ah, I see that redwave @2 has voiced the same sentiments that I have, more eloquently.
Love you, redwave.
tintinnid @4:
I love you, too.
I’m amazed that we’re describing norms of civil behavior to persons who are (presumably) adults. And who believe in an objective morality.
But, to be surprised is to be alive.
Querius, I agree. If I said that a bunch of Lego scattered on the floor is the same as a castle made if Lego, the onus would be on me to justify this claim. But if Barry is insisting that I made this claim, or a similar claim, then he is a liar. There, I said it.
I am certain that it was an honest mistake but whether or not I am allowed to continue commenting will be the test. After all, apologizing to a materialist is not in his nature.
Daniel King: “I’m amazed that we’re describing norms of civil behavior to persons who are (presumably) adults. And who believe in an objective morality”
Not very Christian of them, is it?
Wow- redwave obviously you have issues as your selective mining is quite childish. The “staggering stupid” was in reference to a person who chooses to obfuscate rather than educate. That means the person is unable to have a discussion and again their version of “open discourse” is to obfuscate. That gets frustrating and that is all IDists deal with.
Our opponents love to say that ID is not science yet they cannot use their position to show us what science is. And that is like shadow boxing as the target (our opponents’ version of science) is unhittable. Frustrating. So yes, it makes us feel better calling a spade a spade.
tintinnid:
tininnid @10,
I’m glad to hear that you agree regarding unsupported assertions.
Would you say that this is an unsupported assertion?
Would you say this is another unsupported assertion? So, according to your agreeing with me, how should these statements be treated?
Just asking.
-Q
tintinnid @ 11 wrote:
Jesus is recorded as telling the religious leaders of his time that they were doing the deeds of their father, the devil.
Was that very Christian of him? 😉
-Q
Daniel King @ 7 wrote:
Exactly. Assertions need to be supported. Pejorative assertions need even more support.
-Q
What can justify a pejorative, considering that it doesn’t contribute constructively to a discussion?
Joe. “Wow- redwave obviously you have issues as your selective mining is quite childish. … “.
Thank you for reading my comment.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (I Corinthians 13:11 NKJV)
Daniel King
Good grief, how many times do I have to make the point. I wasn’t trying to justify rudeness. I was explaining that rudeness has little to do with an ad hominem argument. Please tell me what it is about that point that you do not understand.
I can, however, justify rudeness apart from the adhominem argument in some situations, but that is another discussion. If, for example, you continue to make the same mistake, say ten more times, I will likely get rude and you will have merited it.
redwave- OK, when you become a man do come back
You have a strange sense of civility, let alone christian charity, StephenB.
It might be salutary for you to meditate on your pride and your temper.
Daniel King
I think it is the other way around. When someone keeps wasting my time by advancing illogical arguments and ignoring my correctives, I conclude that they are being uncharitable and rude for no good reason. Even after all this time, you are ignoring my argument as if I had not even made it. That is extremely rude and uncharitable.
On the other hand, well-directed rudeness can easily serve the interests of charity.
Examples:
St. John the Baptist “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Jesus Christ “Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?
Both were being charitable because their purpose was to wake people up. Your politically correct perspective is one sided. Yes, charity usually manifests itself as kindness, but not always. Sometimes it comes in the form of tough love and, yes, rudeness.
I don’t accept your presumptuous judgment that I am prideful and angry. However, you did make my earlier point. Ad-hominem arguments can be dressed up in deceptively polite garb. They need not be rude.
Querius: “Would you say that this is an unsupported assertion?”
No. If someone ascribes a comment to me that I did not make, what would you call it?
tintinned, you make a good point:
I am certain that once Barry realizes that he mistakenly attributed E. Seigner’s comment @124 to you, he will immediately retract the error and correct the record. No one at this site has ever been penalized for making a just protest, and your protest is just.
tintinnid,
I’d call it a mistake. The points about supporting assertions are still true.
-Q
Daniel King wonders:
I don’t know. But what if it’s absolutely accurate and hilarious? I’d say that one still has to present support.
-Q
F/N:
I think a few notes are in order, as I see a very familiar DDD in train, the red herring led away to the strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems and snidely or blatantly set alight to cloud, confuse, distract, poison and polarise the atmosphere.
Often, compounded by turnabout accusations.
Notice, how we are suddenly off track from a very needed discussion of willful Darwinist illogic and are off on Christian-baiting and the like?
Characteristic signs.
I do not have to endorse what BA may or may not have said or suggested (he can defend himself) in order to be appalled by the re-appearance of a very familiar distractive pattern as yet another attempt to evade or dismiss needed correction.
Let’s assume BA was wrong. Does that justify either the general pattern of DDD rhetoric, or the specific behaviour he reacted or responded to?
A moment’s thought will tell us, no.
And a further moment’s thought will rapidly point out that “You’re a hypocrite” or “you hit back first” immoral equivalency reasoning highlights a deeper issue. Namely the evolutionary materialist worldview’s inherent IS-OUGHT gap and inability to found moral claims and behaviour [and particularly duties of care to truth, right and fairness] on other than might and manipulation make ‘right.’
So, evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers, do you accept the binding nature of OUGHT and the implication of a world-foundational IS that properly grounds it? (With onward implication of — or at least invited inference to best explanation, of — an inherently Good cosmos-forming Lawgiver.)
If yes, kindly note the pattern of behaviour and enabling in the DDD series is a primary, root and longstanding problem that urgently requires correction. And that making an immoral equivalency excuse and cloud of distractions does not resolve this root problem.
First things must come first, and some amends need to be made.
If not, the case is worse.
For, this would be yet another cycle of DDD evasions, enabling and willful manipulations, driven or influenced by an inherently amoral worldview and associated ideologies. Namely, evolutionary materialism.
It is time to do better than this.
Cho, man, do betta dan dat!
KF
Notes:
1 –> I think we need to put a new term in play that I think is more relevant than the term, “rude” (not least, as it does not necessarily entail being abusive):
2 –> In the teeth of prolonged, insistent — thus evidently willful — verbal misbehaviour, enabling of misbehaviour (such as is going on in this and other threads right now) and resistance to correction, there is a place for short, sharp, direct and characterologically relevant rebuke that may well be brusque.
3 –> While such risks being twisted into a turnabout accusation — recall Jesus’ “Go tell that fox . . . ” in relation to the murderous Herod Aggrippa — it does serve to make it plain that something has gone wrong and needs to be corrected.
4 –> Was Jesus being disrespectful to a King? Or, was he speaking in public rebuke to the man who — pandering to lusts and pride based on his stolen wife’s demands and her [~ 14 YO] daughter Salome’s provocative dance at his birthday party . . . — had unjustly imprisoned then murdered Jesus’ cousin and fellow voice calling for reformation in Israel, John the Baptist?
5 –> Long before we get to that level, we have those who are party to longstanding wrongs abd deceptive tactics such as the DDD series has highlighted, or who have been enablers.
6 –> And, such consistently take umbrage at correction, often being part of circles indulging the worst form of abuses elsewhere up to and including outing attempts against uninvolved family including minors.
7 –> Where also, it ever so easily resorts to the immoral equivalency rhetorical card.
8 –> If we assume error on both parts, two wrongs do not make either one right; both would need to be corrected.
9 –> Further, we need to recognise the derailing effect of the distraction tactics, which frustrates actually addressing some very serious matters on the merits; things of great significance to our civilisation, our thinking and even our souls.
10 –> Where also, polite withdrawal into silence or ignoring of persistent misbehaviour easily becomes surrender to evil, allowing wrong to dominate and drive out soundness, sense and right.
11 –> There is a place for saying: Go tell that fox . . .
12 –> And, after weeks of evasions, obfuscations, insistence on patent error and nonsense and the like, brusque speech is justified.
13 –> I would say, someone who, to maintain a deception willfully refuses to acknowledge the difference between a pile of dirt and a sand castle has a serious problem.
14 –> Someone, who refuses to acknowledge the difference between gibberish and Hamlet’s Soliloquy has an even more serious problem.
15 –> Someone who refuses to see that a tossed down pile of Lego blocks and a model house etc built with such is plainly not operating at the level of a reasonably intelligent five year old.
16 –> Where, all of us are well beyond that level of primary ignorance. Such persistent misbehaviour in the teeth of easily accessible correction over weeks, is artificially stupid and is driven by clinging to absurdities. It is therefore utterly indefensible and irrational.
17 –> And if that goes to character, it does so for sadly revealing cause.
18 –> BA is plainly justified in his points though one may suggest that his phrasing invited further misbehaviour. (Of course, that may be yet more drawing out of the longstanding pattern of ideologically driven irrationality we are plainly confronting. And, at root, evolutionary materialism is self-refuting and inescapably irrational, as has been on record for years, cf here on in context.)
What is staggeringly stupid about this post is that Barry pretends he didn’t even notice whom he insulted. This is the level of self-moderation of the moderators here.
No corrections will be forthcoming, obviously. Don’t hold your breath.
E Seigner- There are so many staggeringly stupid comments from the anti-ID mob that it is easy to confuse the posters. You might as well all be the same person.
Joe: “from the anti-ID mob…”
OK. Who is going to try to tell me that this isn’t an ad-hominem? And from an ID supporter. I am shocked!
How is it an ad hominem? Why can’t you make your case?
I am not shocked…
To recap, Barry’s entire “case” was this:
Definition of ad hominem: Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument.
Does Barry’s comment say anything about the substance of the argument? No, nothing. All he had to say about it was to insult it. Case closed.
Incidentally, nearly every time fallacies or “Darwinian Debate Devices” are brought up in the blog posts here, the posts themselves liberally commit common and obvious fallacies http://fablegod.com/wp-content.....rarchy.jpg
There wasn’t any substance and there wasn’t any argument. That was Barry’s point.
StephenB:
You control your time and what you want to comment upon.
Your correctives are not necessarily correct. As we used to say in the playground when confronted with someone who was convinced that they were always right: “Who elected you God?”
That seems to be one of several possible reactions. And so, having jumped to that conclusion, you feel justified in behaving rudely and uncharitably.
E.Seigner
ES, there was no “substance” to your argument, because you made no “argument.” For the 1000th time, bare contradiction is not an argument. You should write that last sentence down over and over until you understand, because I don’t think you do.
When you deny a truth that is self-evident you are not arguing. Just the opposite is the case. You are being irrational, i.e, staggeringly stupid. You want me to demonstrate how you were being staggeringly stupid when you denied that random Legos strewn across the floor are different than a Lego castle. I will not rise to your bait other than to state another self-evident truth: When someone denies the self-evident, one cannot “argue” them into accepting it, because they have already demonstrated they are immune to rational argument. And pointing that out is not an ad hominem attack. Now the case is closed.
I say we start responding to the anti-ID mob with their bloviating tactic and see how they feel about it. That is we use the ole Zachriel insipid double-talk. And don’t forget to refer to yourself in the plural.
Barry
Ah, so it actually was my argument, not tintinnid’s as you say in OP. You haven’t even corrected this much.
And how about proving your own words here, not merely contradicting me. Quote me fully in the OP, so that everyone can see and decide for themselves if what I do is proper argumentation or mere contradiction. As time goes on, there’s less and less reason to take your word on anything.
Barry: ” It has been brought to my attention that I attributed E.Seigner’s staggeringly stupid comment at 124 in the referenced thread to Tintinnid. I regret the error.”
Thank you for that heartfelt apology for mistakenly telling everybody that I was incapable of rational argument. It takes a big man to admit an error and publically apologize to the wrongly insulted person.
Daniel King
My corrective alluded to facts, not opinions. An adhominem argument is not synonymous with rudeness. Further, an adhominem argument must constitute an attempt to argue; it is not a mere insult or expression of rudeness. If you disagree, make your case. Don’t try to make it sound like I am playing God. That is as rude as your other insinuations to the effect that I am prideful and angry. It is extremely judgmental–and rude.
SB: …I conclude that they are being uncharitable and rude for no good reason. (Time wasting trolls).
First of all, I have not behaved rudely. I have merely argued that rudeness can, at times, be justified–and I have described the conditions under which I might become rude. If you think I have been rude, provide the evidence.
Second, I hold that all the darwinist debating devices are rude because they prompt others to get frustrated by the obvious lack of good faith inherent in those maneuvers. When you tempt someone’s lower nature by evading, distracting, and obfuscating, you are encouraging that person to become irked and respond in a negative way.
Let me be even more precise. It is more disrespectful to dissemble than to call a dissembler a dissembler. It is more disrespectful to murder than to call a murderer a murdered. You are looking only at the politically correct side of rudeness.
StephenB: ” Further, an adhominem argument must constitute an attempt to argue; it is not a mere insult or expression of rudeness..”
Are you saying that they can’t do both? Barry declaring that someone is incapable of rational argument is definitely an insult. As far as I can tell, it is also an argument, because it was based on a previous comment made by somebody. But I am not a lawyer, so what would I know?
tintinned
No, I am not saying that. An ad hominem argument can be rude or not rude.
StephenB: “No, I am not saying that. An ad hominem argument can be rude or not rude.”
And are you willing to step out on that limb and say that Barry’s comment was an ad hominem?
An ad hominem argument would not be “what you said was very wrong and therefore was a staggeringly stupid thing to say.”
That statement could be entirely correct.
An ad hominem would be something like:
“You are very rude and therefore what you said is false”.
That’s drawing a false conclusion based on a characteristic of the person.
Another example of ad hominem would be something like:
“The moderator of UD is very rude and therefore the claims of the ID community (that there is evidence of intelligent design observed in nature) is false”.
That’s an argument against ID based on the characteristics of a person.
Another similar argument would be yours …
tintinnid #4
In this case, you’d be judging (volumes about) the the entire ID movement based on the behavior of the moderator of an ID forum.
tintinnid
No, an adhominem argument
*must be directed to the person, not the activity
*must be irrelevant
*must be false
*must be used as a form of argumentation
Barry’s comment does not meet all the conditions.
By the way, since you feel such unrelenting outrage over Barry’s assessment of E. Seigner’s answer (which was mistakenly attributed to you), and since you were on the scene at the other thread when the answer was given, I would be interested in your answer to the same question:
Can a castle made of Lego bricks be distinguished by its design from a random heap of Lego bricks?
StephenB: “By the way, since you feel such unrelenting outrage over Barry’s assessment of E. Seigner’s answer (which was mistakenly attributed to you), and since you were on the scene at the other thread when the answer was given, I would be interested in your answer to the same question: Can a castle made of Lego bricks be distinguished by its design from a random heap of Lego bricks?”
Desperate distraction?
StephenB:
Actually I’m pretty sure an ad hominem argument doesn’t need to be false. For example “I don’t need logic lessons from a man that experiments on animals.” would be an ad hominen response to… pretty much anything really. It is still a fallacy even if the charge is true.
tintinned:
tintinned
It’s not a distraction if I don’t use it to avoid your question, which I didn’t. I gave you an answer and my reasons for it.
On the other hand, you did not answer my question, which is relevant since it covers the same subject matter that prompted Barry’s original response. Do you disagree with Barry about the quality of the answer?
StephenA:
Good point. Even if the charge is true, it could be an adhominem argument–and it could also not be an adhominem argument as in “You are a child molester, therefore, you should not be allowed supervise boy scouts.”
Hi Barry. I read the following words in a blog somewhere that I thought might be appropriate. They contain an excellent sentiment that all mature adults should embrace.
“In a prior post I highlighted an altercation with Daniel King. DK has been posting here since 2006, and his comments, while generally critical of ID, have been for the most part measured and civil. I am happy to report that Mr. King has accepted responsibility for his actions and posted an apology. We all make mistakes. It takes courage to own those mistakes and apologize. Thank you sir for your demonstration of that courage. The matter is closed”.
tintinnid, here’s why you don’t deserve an apology. Yes, Barry cited the wrong author and acknowledged the point. However, given your behavior, I have every reason to believe that you support the staggering stupid answer that was given. Given your refusal to answer my relevant question, I also have reason to believe that you agree with the mindless philosophy that prompted it, namely that the design of a lego castle cannot be distinguished from a pile of lego bricks.
StephenB, I didn’t want to answer your question because it was completely off topic with regard to what is and is not an ad hominem. But since you insist, of course there is a difference. But I also understand ES’ perspective.
tintinnid, you didn’t answer my question, but I accept your point that it was only tangentially related to the topic under discussion. I will not press the point any further.