Is this a confusing example?

Just as a case in point: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=143

^^ in this thread there are posters actively discussing content that is absolutely on point with the OP. There is no need for someone to come in and make an ad hominem comment with clear intent to not participate otherwise.

I don't care but I think it makes a lot more sense, especially for balanced moderation if mods either:

1) moderated zero content ad hominess out of sincere threads
or
2) let me sling back and hand it to them

I was modded for calling someone that habitually picked shots at me in a way I can't really do back a coward and pussy. These are cowardly acts. They are acts of a coward, which we also refer to as things like pussy-cats and chickens. It's just me calling out the truth directly.

That wasn't an ad hominem comment, buddy.

It is part of a determined attempt to delegitimise people and prevent discussion. This attempt is part of a polical approach so it's hard to ban.

Call it out ocasionally but mostly it's best to focus on those who are more interested in genuine discussion. The mods are fine these days so dont have to bring them into it.

An ad hominem is an argument directed at the person rather than their actual points. It's absolutely an ad hominem.

Your actual points are tedious and it's time to move on, buddy.

(1) That wasn't an ad hominen by any stretch of the definition.

(2) Maybe once a month or so there is this huge crybaby tantrum in this thread by somebody that loves to dish it out, but can't take it. Like everybody that makes these posts, I can promise you nobody is reading your posts and is thinking that you are making great points. As Trolly correctly points out, scrolling past your complaints is tedious. This is supposed to be a fun thread in a fun forum. Stop making this not fun.

both of these are ad hominems by the standard definition.how about leave my profile alone, respond to my actual arguments, especially when the two of u clearly aren't capable of participating sincerely.

I havent cried for not being able to take it but dishing it, the moment I put it back on the ad hominemers I get told I'm on my last warning before account is nuked.

Let's either cut out the pure attacks on people's profiles or let me dish it back.

Don't cry.

Perhaps it is the way you dish it out.

"ad hominem" is when I make fun of the shape of d2's head. Telling you your posts are bad and you should move on isn't ad hominem, it's attacking the substance of your ideas.

Correct.

Nope.

Calling a post a deliberate troll is directed at the poster's actual point rather than the person. You seem to make this mistake quite a bit; it may feel like a personal slight to you when someone attacks your argument, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem.

A more valid argument might be that it wasn't substantive, didn't move the argument forward, etc., but that's a pretty difficult thing to police, and I don't think it would make for an enjoyable forum if every post underwent that scrutiny. And we wouldn't have moderators for long if we asked that of them. If a given poster is constantly posting in such a manner, I'd suggest reporting the problematic posts noting that it's a pattern that is derailing the discussion, but it's rare that it gets that bad IMO. I think your takeaway from all this should be that directly insulting other posters isn't tolerated, but you need a little thicker skin when it comes to people not addressing subjects in quite the way you think they should.

As for the ban, it was two weeks I gave you, not three. That was due to your history with having multiple accounts banned, and then your more recent behaviour of being warned not to attack other posters, which was followed by you immediately going back and attacking said posters again, and then going after a moderator for not giving you the response you demanded. Another moderator didn't notice you had already been banned, and his 3 day ban overwrote mine, which was fine with me. Moderators here now know your history, you know you're on thin ice, so I've accomplished what I set out to and will step back and let moderators of this forum decide how to handle future issues if there are any.

Boba, this is 100 ****ING PERCENT an ad hominem based argument as described ^^^

And I believe its a CRITICAL point here because a lot of mods, gastaman seemingly included, seem to be functioning on this misunderstanding/interpretation.

See the problem is that the mods can decide the definitions of these words. But I mean if you go to a group of uni professors and say "I told a guy his answers are bad and he should move on" and you think they will argue that is a proper attempt to address the answers said guy made?

I'd take that bet.

edit: and for what I called out as an ad hominem earlier, if its not with the context I thought, I really meant to address exactly the idea that you can call someone's ideas **** especially in general and have that not be an ad hominem.

I don't see a difference between 2 and 3 weeks. I see an intense difference between that and 3 days. One is a cooldown (a normal weekend without social media etc) the other is a punishment.

It's true in a sense that past history should weigh in, however, generally that past history is allowed to be defended. I was never allowed defense. And for the most part of what you are citing I was continually banned not for anything I did but simply because someone found 'nash guy'. In 4 years I haven't had any serious infractions and you want me to act like I have a noose around my neck socially.

I'm obviously sincere, I obviously value my account (as I valued the ones I no longer can use) why not just be clear about what's expected. BGP has never had such issues with me in the bitcoin thread, which is where I predominantly post. They just tell me when its too much. They were the one that suggested I might fit into some of the threads here.

it was a typo.

anyway, if you think hes clever, well that may be even worse than your transphobia.

On a forum, or ie in reasonable and sincere dialogue (obvious 2p2 has purpose to be fun and trolly at least 'as well' if not primarily but regardless), an ad hominem is considered an invalid criticism. The reason that its a 'thing' or the reason someone would invoke the phrase is to call the other person out for not having provided in their response an argument.

Someone wants to say 'this isn't an ad hominem' but of course any one can make such a declaration. Thats why in reasonable discourse you have to rather provide the valid argument in order to assert there isn't a pure ad hominem.

In Trolly's space, they want to argue just because they can't provide a valid argument, doesn't mean the invalid argument is an ad hominem. This kind of arguing, doesn't belong in the reasonable discourse of men (ie mankind).

It's a waste of our lives.

The current discussion of what constitutes an ad hominem argument ran its course several hours ago. Please move on.

When most people are challenged regarding their understanding of what a concept means, they at least do a quick Google search before they continue on making the same error. An ad hominen is not just a personal attack. It is a logical fallacy where rather than addressing an argument on its merits, the quality of the argument's proponent is instead attacked.

Example:

PERSON A: I think taxes are too high.

PERSON B: That's rich coming from somebody convicted of DUI ten years ago! How about you repay your debt to society before you talk about taxes.


In this case, the argument is not addressed at all, but a personal characteristic of that person is brought up to discredit that argument. You seem to think that any criticism of you is an "ad hominen." Somebody telling you that your points are annoying is the complete opposite of an ad hominen. DUCY?

Nope.

Something to consider for the future - maybe if you think everyone else is misunderstanding a word, it's not them, but you.

No, I don't think that, and I didn't argue that. We were discussing whether something was an ad hominem attack, not whether it was a proper attempt to address a post.

Fair enough. It would probably cause less confusion if you stopped referring to them as ad hominem posts, unless they're actually attacking the poster.

FWIW, I covered what I thought you really meant to address in my post as well:


One is a week longer, or 50%. Since I posted earlier that I banned you for 2 weeks, and then you said it was 3, I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion. No larger point was being made that the difference should have changed your reaction to it.

Agreed.

No, many of your bans were not simply because someone found 'nash guy'. If that was the case, this account would have been banned years ago.

I'm sure the Politics moderator will be fair with you, you just might get a little less leeway than some others.

I always consider it, which is why I put such things to the crowd.

The greater context is where or not its an attempt to contribute or not. That we don't want to confuse 'attacking the substance of your ideas' with 'speaking to the heart of your sentiments with sincerity...'. "Your ideas are ****" isn't really a defensibly valid argument nor contribution.

does it have to be direct tho?

Then I think you will see a lot of the time a group that is constantly picking people off with this type of behavior, that passes the mod filter, but absolutely stifles sincere dialogue, especially the difficult kind.


I don't deserve punishment.

Yes they were, I didn't have to do anything to get banned, just get spotted as nash guy. But my views don't hide well. I've never been allowed defense about this (as a matter of fact I wouldn't have been so open about it until more recently or at least only in this thread and not in a place like nvg),
Because of you. In the context of the subject of why special rules for special groups can lead to authority issues.

(i didn't see the request to move on from ad hominems before this post.)

I'm sure that happened at times, but I know for certain there were other times when you were allowed to post for a while, and when you reverted to the same behaviour, you were banned.

As for your points about people failing to address the substance of posts, I think you've made your stance on this clear, and I agree with some of it. How Politics moderators wish to handle such issues will be up to them, so I'll leave it at that.

LOL, I entirely missed it as well until you posted this. My apologies to Rococo and the forum for keeping it going.

jbouton seemingly always wants to redefine what words mean to fit his current argument.

Can we not do this?

Why did Schlitz get banned?

He was banned by someone other than the mods of this forum.

Thanks for this. The question was why he was banned tho.