I have not made any ad hominems. Suggesting that someone's argument isn't realistic or that they are in denial is not an ad hominem. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy whereby you attack someone's character to discredit their argument, and I'm not doing any of that. My argument that Reiichi is clearly cheating is based on the evidence which I cited in my post.
It is, Heavensrun, AD HOMINEM.
No, it literally isn't. Ad hominem does not mean "I feel offended by what you said". It's a specific term with a specific meaning.
Your argument is perhaps technically accurate, but still basically silly. Let's stipulate for a moment that you are not committing the fallacious argument technique of using a claim about someone's personality in an attempt to establish that what they say is false. Indeed, it appears almost the reverse--you're using your assessment of the inaccuracy of someone's stated beliefs as evidence for saying something negative about them personally. It doesn't make everything better.
The reason people object to the use of "ad hominem" in web conversations is not that they object to fallacious arguments. The reason people object is that it's rude to insult people and it leads to heated exchanges and people getting upset.
First of all, suggesting someone is in denial about something isn't even an insult, it's an assessment of their rationality.
Of course it's an insult. Why would something not be an insult just because it's an "assessment of their rationality"? Calling someone crazy, or a moron, et cetera et cetera are "assessments of their rationality" but obviously insults. Further, something does not stop being an insult merely because it is true, or you believe it to be true. Take Dick Cheney, for instance. I think the facts publicly available make it abundantly clear that the man is vicious, ruthless, deeply dishonest, powerhungry, greedy, and heartless. Indeed, for those who believe in the utility of the term "evil", I'd say a near consensus could be found for its application to that man. Even conservatives hate his guts. And yet, if I call Dick Cheney an evil, heartless, deeply dishonest, vicious, powerhungry money-grubber that is an insult. It doesn't cease to be an insult just because it is demonstrably true. It is an insult because it is a negative statement about the man.
If you say you are right and someone else is wrong, you are making a claim about the facts of the case. If you say they are wrong because they are in denial, you are making a negative claim about their psychology. You are saying there is something about them that makes them prefer a falsehood to the truth. Preferring lies to the truth is normatively considered bad, either evil or weak. Thus, it is an insult --whether it is true or not.
So, fine, you didn't use an ad hominem argument--you were just rude and insulting. Don't be. Also, when you say something not nice to someone and they get upset, don't spend paragraphs of sidestepping logic explaining why their objection has technical flaws, apologize for not being nice.
As as side note, I myself am convinced that the evidence is abundantly clear that cheating was going on, and in fact it's pretty much a definite that it was systematic long term cheating. So I agree with you on the facts of that issue. Just not your unnecessary extra.
last edited at Jan 11, 2018 10:55PM
.jpg?1508375222)