Ad hominem - Revision history

Jukeboksi: Category:Ad hominem

2021-04-12T13:40:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:40, 12 April 2021
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Tolerating any form of ad hominem attack (which insiders can get away with but outsiders can't) tends to create a hierarchy of insiders and thus an [[insider culture]] similar to that of [[bureaucracy]] or [[academia]], where a trusted name can spout nonsense for years without being detected or kicked out, and where untrusted names with proof of their claims get ignored.		Tolerating any form of ad hominem attack (which insiders can get away with but outsiders can't) tends to create a hierarchy of insiders and thus an [[insider culture]] similar to that of [[bureaucracy]] or [[academia]], where a trusted name can spout nonsense for years without being detected or kicked out, and where untrusted names with proof of their claims get ignored.

			[[Category:Ad hominem]]

142.177.99.48 at 01:32, 16 June 2004

2004-06-16T01:32:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:32, 16 June 2004
Line 5:		Line 5:
	'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack or defense on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.		'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack or defense on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.

	~~[[Ad~~ hominem ~~revert]] is~~ an ~~obvious example, one common on~~ [[~~large public wiki~~]]~~s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "~~not ~~free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised~~ to [[~~sysop vandalism~~]]~~, a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by~~ [[~~Wikimedia~~]].		Speculative attributions of motive are ad hominem (an observation of [[English Wikipedia User Bird]]) not to mention [[amateur psychiatry]] based usually on [[pop psychology]]. More seriously, and much more damaging:

	[[Trolls]] also disapprove of [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]]. ~~This~~ tends to create a hierarchy of insiders and thus an [[insider culture]] similar to that of [[bureaucracy]] or [[academia]], where a trusted name can spout nonsense for years without being detected or kicked out, and where untrusted names with proof of their claims get ignored.		[[Ad hominem revert]] is common on [[large public wiki]]s. It is so damaging that it gives rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free".

			[[Ad hominem delete]] amplifies the reversion to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]] - a strong sign of its [[Wikimedia corruption]].

			[[Trolls]] also disapprove of [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]] and punishing their [[thoughtcrime]].

			Tolerating any form of ad hominem attack (which insiders can get away with but outsiders can't) tends to create a hierarchy of insiders and thus an [[insider culture]] similar to that of [[bureaucracy]] or [[academia]], where a trusted name can spout nonsense for years without being detected or kicked out, and where untrusted names with proof of their claims get ignored.

142.177.92.162: we understand it, and we dont like it

2004-03-09T01:09:37Z

we understand it, and we dont like it

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 9 March 2004
Line 7:		Line 7:
	[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].		[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].

	~~Some~~ [[~~trolls~~]] ~~refuse to understand~~ [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]].		[[Trolls]] also disapprove of [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]]. This tends to create a hierarchy of insiders and thus an [[insider culture]] similar to that of [[bureaucracy]] or [[academia]], where a trusted name can spout nonsense for years without being detected or kicked out, and where untrusted names with proof of their claims get ignored.

Jukeboksi: further on "ad hominem approval"

2004-03-08T17:04:35Z

further on "ad hominem approval"

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 8 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''"ad hominem"''' is a Latin phrase used very commonly in English (just like "ad nauseum", and also "i.e." and "e.g." are abbreviations of Latin phrases). It is, effectively, part of English.		'''"ad hominem"''' is a Latin phrase used very commonly in English (just like "ad nauseum", and also "i.e." and "e.g." are abbreviations of Latin phrases). It is, effectively, part of English.

	What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to '''who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents''', in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation.		What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to '''who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents''', in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against or for what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation or as a reason of non-acting upon it thus in silent approval of it.

	'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack or defense on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.		'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack or defense on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.

Jukeboksi: typo

2004-03-08T17:03:27Z

typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 8 March 2004
Line 7:		Line 7:
	[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].		[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].

	Some [[trolls]]] refuse to understand [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]].		Some [[trolls]] refuse to understand [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]].

Jukeboksi: typo

2004-03-08T17:03:15Z

typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 8 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'"ad hominem"' is a Latin phrase used very commonly in English (just like "ad nauseum", and also "i.e." and "e.g." are abbreviations of Latin phrases). It is, effectively, part of English.		'''"ad hominem"''' is a Latin phrase used very commonly in English (just like "ad nauseum", and also "i.e." and "e.g." are abbreviations of Latin phrases). It is, effectively, part of English.

	What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to '''who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents''', in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation.		What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to '''who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents''', in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation.

Jukeboksi: formatting and noting ad hominem can be a defense, not necessary an attack always

2004-03-08T17:02:12Z

formatting and noting ad hominem can be a defense, not necessary an attack always

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 8 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''"ad hominem"''' is a Latin phrase used very commonly in English (just like "ad nauseum", and also "i.e." and "e.g." are abbreviations of Latin phrases). It is, effectively, part of English.		'"ad hominem"' is a Latin phrase used very commonly in English (just like "ad nauseum", and also "i.e." and "e.g." are abbreviations of Latin phrases). It is, effectively, part of English.

	What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to '''who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents''', in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation.		What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to '''who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents''', in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation.

	'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.		'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack or defense on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.

	[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].		[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].

	Some trolls refuse to understand [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]].		Some [[trolls]]] refuse to understand [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]].

Jukeboksi: added a note about "ad hominem approval" and explanation of

2004-03-08T17:00:36Z

added a note about "ad hominem approval" and explanation of

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 8 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''"ad hominem"''' is a Latin phrase used very commonly in English (just like "ad nauseum", and also "i.e." and "e.g." are abbreviations of Latin phrases). It is, effectively, part of English.

			What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to '''who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents''', in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation.

	'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.		'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.

	[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].		[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].

			Some trolls refuse to understand [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]].

142.177.75.54 at 18:01, 20 February 2004

2004-02-20T18:01:57Z

New page

'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.

[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].