Ad Hominem Attacks Are Sometimes Necessary.

[@darksydesamy]

Naming a conflict of interest isn't really an ad homemin attack. It's just speaking facts.

[@ellcaa4220]

The problem with ad hominem attacks isn't that they're not speaking facts. Like, if I argue that America shouldn't nuke Bejing, someone saying "You're fat." is a bad, ad hominem attack even if I indeed am fat and they indeed are "speaking facts".

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

I may not have done the appropriate research.

[@darksydesamy]

@@ellcaa4220 attacking someone based on physical appearance isn't the same as pointing out someone's financial incentives. It doesn't take much to understand this.

[@ellcaa4220]

@@darksydesamy You missed the point. If I argue that America shouldn't nuke Bejing and you correctly point out that I work for Evil Inc., that's still not a good argument for nuking Bejing, even if I indeed do work for Evil Inc. The problem with ad hominem isn't that it's rude, it's that it doesn't address the issue at hand. That's why it doesn't matter whether it's true and "speaking facts".

[@ruprecht8520]

Currect, and a conflict of interests doesn't actually mean the persons arguments are incorrect.

[@سلامسالمي-ر6ذ]

If someone calls for war while working or have connections to arms companies, this is not ad hominem

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Good to know.

[@biggnesss7192]

Ad hominems are only necessary if you're opposition truly advocates for something truly horrific. I once saw a debate where vaush advocated for cp on the basis of "freedom". It was an absolutely disgusting take I will never take any of his thoughts seriously after I found out that he tried to defend cp.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

What's cp?

[@JellyAntz]

child pron?

[@FreonChugger]

@@MoFreedomFoundation Child pornography

[@BrotherBrio]

@@MoFreedomFoundation - I think he means a political organization that is a party, and has a requirement that it's members support the philosophy of Marx and Lenin. Which inevitably leads to leaders like Stalin and Pol Pot. But I'm just guessing

[@vypa-bk1iy]

Your mistaking and conflating ad hominem attacks with just pointing our conflicts of interest.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Huh.

[@FreonChugger]

The Fallacy Fallacy is my favorite fallacy of all. As there is reality that much of what is debated by the opposition may hold ideas and facts that may be true and hold information that would help an open minded individual to learn more. The list of fallacies supplied by the “intellectual community” are merely tools to ensure that debates are enacted between two cave men with clubs in which one shall beat the other to victory. Such a matter ensures the ego prevails and nothing is learned.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Heh. Yeah, I like that. The fallacy fallacy.

[@BrotherBrio]

Well, the logical fallacies were defined over 2000 years ago by philosophers in the first democracies in Greece and Rome. They exist because people wanted to stop with the clubs and swords and use reason to settle arguments. And the first thing that they teach is that Logic does establish the truth of a statement. For example, a popular saying is "All politicians are corrupt." Which might be followed by "Barry Goldwater was a politician, so Barry Goldwater was corrupt." It might be true, it might be false, but there's no logic in it. Personally I'd bet that Barry Goldwater was never involved in corruption. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and disagreed with 99% of the that he tried to do, but I believe his opinions were honestly his own..... Now there are a bunch of people in government that don't come up to that standard IMHO.

[@lastword8783]

I think this is a misunderstanding of ad hominem attacks. Pointing a conflict of interest and bias in a person isn't necessarily an ad hominem. But it is a problem when you use it to discredit the idea itself. Just as an example, suppose you were discussing with someone whether or not war is necessary. You may be able to say "You only think war is necessary because you're an asshole" which may or may not be true but it doesn't actually tackle the question of whether or not war is necessary but only allegedly why that person thinks so and thus anyone else who thinks its necessary is also an asshole. The conclusion doesn't follow logically. It could be necessary whether or not that person is an asshole. It is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether or not war is necessary.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

I'll confess I haven't made a study of logic.

[@cyrusachaemenid2046]

I used to be into the so called "debate étiquette" when discussing and arguing with folks in the internet over in forums or Reddit... but as I got older, I've lost all patience in trying to win over someone if they engage in an obvious argument of bad faith and just straight up attack the person by calling them a retard or other names that questions one's intellect as "politely" arguing with these people is just a waste of time. And if the community and its moderators after so much bullshit still believe in "debate etiquette" and goes: "oh nyoooo, but dudeeee even though that guy has no idea about what he's talking about, doesn't mean you get to call him a dumb neanderthal, that's le ebil ad-hominem!" then yeah you're never going to win the argument in the first place it's like fighting a pig in mud whatever you do you can't win.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

My tolerance for many things has gone down as I have aged.

[@BrotherBrio]

Debate and Logic are two separate things 99% of the time. The truth in the saying "Never wrestle with a pig in the mud, you get dirty and the pig likes it" is really telling us that we should stand above the mudhole and say "You're just kicking mud on yourself down there, take a moment and consider the view from outside the mudhole."

[@BrotherBrio]

Me too, especially my tolerance for Tequila...

[@Jokkkkke]

Not sure that qualifies as an ad hominem personally but I want to take this further. Sometimes we need to criticize someone for who they are in a moral sense insofar as their actions define them. I think this is a necessary ground for ad hominem's, though I can accept the view that actions should not necessarily immutably define the person who carried out the given action

[@duckpotat9818]

Yeah, sometimes pointing out hypocrisy when it comes to someone's central philosophy is important. For example Peterson rambles about responsibility and degeneracy but he literally spent weeks in a Benzodiazepine induced coma. Now I understand its an underlying psychiatric issue but he doesn't want to admit such things exist.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Makes sense.

[@OverkillGamingPC]

Believing Zeihan's word on energy as gospel would be moronic. Taking diet advice from a fat person would be moronic. Believing MFF isn't left wing biased (not that it's bad) would be moronic.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

I see myself as a conservative.

[@OverkillGamingPC]

@@MoFreedomFoundation yes, I'm well aware. I could see myself as a spaceman for all it matters, but that wouldn't make it true.

[@sidecar7714]

Interesting to bear in mind, however, what you are more specifically describing is an appeal to motive; a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Cool.

[@GrandArchPriestOfTheAlgorithm]

This is too easy.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

You'd think.

[@patrickblanchette4337]

Every rule has its exception (this can also be applied to the slippery slope fallacy).

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Sure.

[@DeepsongProductions]

It all comes down to motive... Each argument is unique and ad homs can make one look foolish or clever; and they can be fun but... ad homs are basically an admission of defeat and are oftentimes used to "save face" though they can backfire

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Sure.

[@rick4electric]

He is obviously confused about what an ad hominem attack is!

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Probably

[@m.deadly5952]

That's fair. Pointing potential reasons for why someone could be biased can be helpful. if only to be more skeptical of their claims before taking their words for it. Having said that, I do think however that PZ views on renewable is generally balanced. He doesn't dismiss their utility, specially depending on the technology and where it's implemented, but merely points to their limitations and how their significance could be exaggerated. Still I wouldn't be displeased if he is proven wrong. We do need more alternative clean energy sources that are as reliable as fossil fuel in terms of abundance and cost.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

He's doing a Motte and Bailey thing. He's sounding more reasonable, and doesn't deny climate facts, but his policy prescriptions are just gas forever for everyone.

[@hrsmrt9292]

More precisely with Being critical and 'sarcastic'... is different with being insultive and disdainful. more better if you do something rather constructive that's perceived by 'people A' from 'nation A' better, so you can mock and makes fun of 'nation B' with all of that bad habits and prove that us ('nation C') is a better option/savior.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Difficult distinctions to make.

[@hrsmrt9292]

@@MoFreedomFoundation Learn it from Chinese Wumaos (influencers)

[@JackHawkinswrites]

If the persons points are correct, and all you are assailing is the fact he gets paid by folks you do not like . . . Means the facts don’t support your position

[@willf2079]

So you are saying if a PR guy for Dunkin’ Donuts implies that donuts don’t make you fat, should we not take that conflict of interest into account?

[@lastword8783]

@@willf2079 You can say that person may not be trustworthy or that the implication requires further investigation but it doesn't actually prove what they're implying wrong. Most likely why you think Donuts make you fat is based on some other data and this person is contradicting. Whether they work for Dunkin Donuts or not doesn't effect that. You don't prove that person wrong by pointing out who they work for, you prove them wrong by the data which shows Donuts make you fat.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Disagree.

[@ellcaa4220]

You're kind of right. You can and should talk about it, but only in addition of actually also rebuking their argument, never just instead of that.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Seems fair

[@duckpotat9818]

In Science we always have to state our conflict of interest, ofc this doesn't apply to online personalities and neither does the rigorous and symmetrical peer review.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

That's what I do. Peer review.

[@myndwork]

Man Zeihan really gets your goat.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

He does.

[@Werelight]

I mean, I think you’ve got a little false premise there - discussing someone’s background to identify why someone might think a certain way isn’t an ad hominem attack - it’s just reasonable. The ad hominem attack follows the structure of “you’re wrong because you’re X.” Major figures trade on credibility. It’s improper to wield credibility at the level of formal logic and scientific experimentation, but people aren’t always citing sources and showing data. Sometimes you have to discuss who has the best cause to be worth listening to. I wouldn’t conflate here - it’s just fair to discuss someone’s biases and interests. It’s not as though such complaints are thoroughly armor-piercing, or that we think they are - it’s worth following up.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Cool

[@Werelight]

@@MoFreedomFoundation cool! Wishing you well, dude.

[@BrotherBrio]

In order to be effective in debate or logic, you must use the right terms. The persons character does not mean that persons self-interest. Obviously how a person makes a living affects their perspective. To use the example given, a person who works at an oil company would have experience that would be relevant to a discussion about energy production and the time and cost of developing new oil reserves or refineries. At the same time they are bound to be afraid of their industry shrinking in market size. To point this out is not an attack on the person, the Latin phrase "ad hominem" means "to the man" and is used to describe a logical fallacy, it is a fair question to ask if the persons self-interest affects their judgment.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Thanks.

[@johnniemac173]

If someone works for an oil and gas company and is making an argument in line with that company’s line.. ..the argument still stands or falls upon its own merit. If BP itself makes a statement and that statement is true, then that statement is true, truth doesn’t care about who spoke it into existence. Neither should we. If Adolf Hitler himself came back to life, ran into my living room and screamed “Call 911, your house is on fire!”, I’m not going to let my house burn down to spite Adolf Hitler. Ad Hominem should never be grounds for the dismissal of an argument. The faults of the argument and the argument alone should be the only grounds for dismissal of it. “Is this truth?” is and should be the only metric.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Absurd.

[@johnniemac173]

@@MoFreedomFoundation The idea that truth itself should be at the center of an argument is “absurd”? Generations of philosophers are rolling in their graves.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

@@johnniemac173 The idea that truth is discoverable without a rigorous investigation of the motives of those who claim to purvey it. There was much, much less to know in ancient philosophy time.

[@johnniemac173]

@@MoFreedomFoundation Motives don’t alter truth. If a thing is A, and your worst enemy says “That thing is A”, and you examine his argument and find that the thing actually is A, then that’s the beginning and end of the argument. You don’t then go on to apply tons of qualifiers as to why “the thing being A” somehow isn’t fully the truth because the person that highlighted that it was the truth has flaws that impact it’s..truthiness.. It just don’t work man. And my position certainly isn’t “absurd”.

[@Alamgir-ri6px]

Your arguing in favour of so called Anti-Semites😂

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Uh, no.

[@gatuarhin]

Pointing out someone’s job and how it incentivises their actions isn’t an ad hominem attack, because it is relevant to the debate. However, it’s still an unnecessary argument because their job doesn’t necessarily make them think that way, instead the way that they think made them pick that job. For example, if someone is very pro-war and works in the military industrial complex, then they were probably pro-war before getting their job. Getting their job mostly just means that they probably know more about war than someone without the job. Their pay is an incentive but usually not as much as you may think.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

I don't think this is true at all. People are shaped by their jobs. Massively. I watched this in Washington DC in my 20s. People's principles get shaped by their mortgages.

[@kkroeger5868]

Pointing out potential conflicts of interest is not ad homemin attack...Darksydesamy said it before me, but I wanted to repeat the point...

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Thanks.

[@walid7885]

I get the same attacks from Peter Zeihan bots. They're not baby boomers. Just hired muscle with no power or brain .

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

I know both of the folks I was arguing against.

[@walid7885]

@@MoFreedomFoundation You don't represent much of a threat to Zeihan or his patrons. You agree with him on more stuff that you disagree with him. Your premises are about the same. It's just like family memebers arguing about small detail :) I, on the other hand, don't agree that China is evil, I don't buy the Uighur Genocide and the Tibet repression or the Hong Kong repression. For me it's propaganda and people on the field proved it with videos. Except that guys like Zeihan and youdon't want the see or hear anything different.

[@19382q]

​@@walid7885 are you muslim though..

[@walid7885]

@@19382q What's your point?

[@LeeeerrrroooyJennnnnkins]

🎯

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Thanks.

[@GaladorLP]

Well... on principle people with biased interests should have biased arguments which they can in turn be attacked for. (And put in necessary context for that matter) If their person doesn't influence their arguments, it shouldn't matter as their point has a reasonable ground, right?

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Sure.

[@yhvvcbhjjggjk-id1re]

It Is not. It doesn't matter that i call your ideas leftist . The ideas being leftist doesn't prove them being wrong or correct . If I was dismissing your ideas just because they are leftist than i am making ad hominem attack. But I am not doing that I am trying with arguments to respond to your ideas

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

This is exactly what I am doing in the short you are complaining about.

[@toaster2428]

It’s considered irrelavent attacks

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Cool

[@TS-zp7pe]

It’s important to know what someone does along with other things such as ethnicity, religion and political beliefs in order to understand the reasons as to why they say, what they say. For instance you’re a Jew (self identifying Zionist) born into a left leaning hippy family, that gives one an understanding of your views.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

I am an Episcopalian born into a family so conservative that I have a cousin named Reagan.

[@TS-zp7pe]

@@MoFreedomFoundation Christian’s are also Zionists and you literally said that your parents were hippies on a Live.

[@yhvvcbhjjggjk-id1re]

I don't see any ad hominem attack in my comment so what is the problem

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

You call me a leftist in every comment. It's an attack on my assumed biases, which is what you are complaining about me doing

[@scottlaux6934]

Its OK to attack criminal and unethical behavior ( being paid by big oil to hate on renewables or deny climate science) in the context of attacking their position. A guy in today's video did one- he said you are biased without giving any evidence or specific.

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Hypocrisy abounds.

[@yhvvcbhjjggjk-id1re]

I don't think I am failing if so than show me your arguments

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

You are not fun to talk to, because you just repeat yourself and never learn anything.

[@ltw6888]

So they’re boomers so we don’t have to listen to them? (I know that’s not what you were saying. Still funny)

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Not always.

[@ltw6888]

@@MoFreedomFoundation funny again! Thanks for being great here

[@steelersguy74]

Does this really count as “ad hominem”?

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Not sure.

[@yhvvcbhjjggjk-id1re]

You are not doing that you are saying that using ad hominem attack as evidence against someone else's ideas is a good thing . I am not doing that. yes I call your ideas leftist but I don't use this to claim that your ideas are inhertly wrong just because they are leftist . I am trying to use arguments against your ideas

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

And failing.

[@yhvvcbhjjggjk-id1re]

Yes I read my comment and it is fine what is the problem with my comment exactly

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

It's a comment condemning ad Hominem Attacks that makes one.

[@yhvvcbhjjggjk-id1re]

Sorry this sounds like a leftist nonsense .you should respond to the argument instead of poisoning the well

[@MoFreedomFoundation]

Read your own comment.