Krav-Maga??

[Headhunter]

Character and personal knowledge are two different things. I know squat about thermodynamics, if someone told me that it wouldn't be an attack on my character. Just a statement.

Yep I don’t care about rat either way. I don’t like him I dont hate him. I don’t know him I have no opinion on him My point is he’s talking like He’s an expert in martial arts though he’s never done a day of training just watched YouTube

 

[drop bear]

Character and personal knowledge are two different things. I know squat about thermodynamics, if someone told me that it wouldn't be an attack on my character. Just a statement.

Has headhunter been in the military?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Has headhunter been in the military?

No clue. But I wasn't commenting on that either. Just stating that questioning knowledge is not an attack on character.

 

[drop bear]

No clue. But I wasn't commenting on that either. Just stating that questioning knowledge is not an attack on character.

Have you been in the military?

And you will see how this is an ad hominem in a moment.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Have you been in the military?

And you will see how this is an ad hominem in a moment.

I have not. I also haven't made any comments about what works/doesn't work in the military though. And I made no statements about whether headhunters argument was legitimate or not. I really don't care, I find very little use for a discussion about military tactics personally. I was just stating that questioning knowledge is not an attack on character.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I have not. I also haven't made any comments about what works/doesn't work in the military though. And I made no statements about whether headhunters argument was legitimate or not. I really don't care, I find very little use for a discussion about military tactics personally. I was just stating that questioning knowledge is not an attack on character.

And FWIW, I would not state what would be effective or not in the military, wearing their gear, because I have not done it. Unless someone who has, has told me that something does/doesn't work. Or if it's something incredibly obvious (being in the military does not grant you the gift of flight for instance).

 

[drop bear]

I have not. I also haven't made any comments about what works/doesn't work in the military though. And I made no statements about whether headhunters argument was legitimate or not. I really don't care, I find very little use for a discussion about military tactics personally. I was just stating that questioning knowledge is not an attack on character.

I have been in the military. (No really I qualified as a sapper)

And so by definition everyone but me is automatically wrong.

Which then becomes an attack on the poster not the post.

And therefore an ad hominem.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I have been in the military. (No really I qualified as a sapper)

And so by definition everyone but me is automatically wrong.

Which then becomes an attack on the poster not the post.

And therefore an ad hominem.

It's an attack on the poster's knowledge, and stating that they do not have the information to discuss it. Whether or not that's valid is a different argument altogether. But again, I was not stating I agree with headhunter vs. rat, I was not stating that headhunter was not using an ad hominem argument. I was only saying, and this is the third time I'm clarifying this, questioning knowledge is not an attack on character. It may be an attack on the poster in terms of attack on their knowledge level (if you want to use a really lose version of the word 'attack'), but no judgments at all were stated about his character.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have been in the military. (No really I qualified as a sapper)

And so by definition everyone but me is automatically wrong.

Which then becomes an attack on the poster not the post.

And therefore an ad hominem.

Automatically less credible (unless they present some alternative credibility), but not automatically wrong. I'm unclear whether that falls under ad hominem, though. I'd need to see how it's fully defined. It is an attack on the credibility of the person making the statement (rather than the statement, itself), so it might fit.

 

[drop bear]

Automatically less credible (unless they present some alternative credibility), but not automatically wrong. I'm unclear whether that falls under ad hominem, though. I'd need to see how it's fully defined. It is an attack on the credibility of the person making the statement (rather than the statement, itself), so it might fit.

Either an hominem or an appeal to authority. But it is almost always a terrible argument.

I can see why rat just went screw you I am not playing.

 

[drop bear]

It's an attack on the poster's knowledge, and stating that they do not have the information to discuss it. Whether or not that's valid is a different argument altogether. But again, I was not stating I agree with headhunter vs. rat, I was not stating that headhunter was not using an ad hominem argument. I was only saying, and this is the third time I'm clarifying this, questioning knowledge is not an attack on character. It may be an attack on the poster in terms of attack on their knowledge level (if you want to use a really lose version of the word 'attack'), but no judgments at all were stated about his character.

It doesn't attack the post. It attacks the poster. Ad hominem.

If that has knowledge or not doesn't matter. He is either right or wrong.

Grass is green.
Yeah but you have No knowledge.

Is an ad hominem.

Because regardless of a person's knowledge or military background. Grass is still green.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It is an attack on the credibility of the person making the statement (rather than the statement, itself), so it might fit.

It's no fun when this happen.

I still miss "the true hero of the east", and his teacher "the blind Shaolin monk". He did bring some happiness into this forum.

A: I'm the true hero of the east. My teacher is the blind Shaolin Monk.
B: I'm the Kung Fu king. My teacher is the Chinese wrestling king.
A:
B:

 

[_Simon_]

I believe it's pronounced, krAAHV magAHHHH. And not KRAV MAGGAH!

My knowledge of it! *thumbs up*

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It doesn't attack the post. It attacks the poster. Ad hominem.

If that has knowledge or not doesn't matter. He is either right or wrong.

Grass is green.
Yeah but you have No knowledge.

Is an ad hominem.

Because regardless of a person's knowledge or military background. Grass is still green.

You keep repeating that, and I keep telling you that I'm not disagreeing with you, and was making an entirely different point. Clearly that doesn't matter since you're in your "need to win" mode, rather than actually reading my post and seeing there's nothing to win. So I'm done here.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Automatically less credible (unless they present some alternative credibility), but not automatically wrong. I'm unclear whether that falls under ad hominem, though. I'd need to see how it's fully defined. It is an attack on the credibility of the person making the statement (rather than the statement, itself), so it might fit.

Oh, it's definitely an attack on credibility, not an actual attack of the argument. And rat not being in the military doesn't disprove anything he said. But that doesn't mean it's an attack on his character. Which rat was suggesting is the same thing.

 

[drop bear]

You keep repeating that, and I keep telling you that I'm not disagreeing with you, and was making an entirely different point. Clearly that doesn't matter since you're in your "need to win" mode, rather than actually reading my post and seeing there's nothing to win. So I'm done here.

Well when you just completely subject change mid conversation. You realise it is going to be hard for people to follow?

So yeah. In a completely different conversation to the one we were just having you could question a person's knowledge without questioning a person's character.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Character and personal knowledge are two different things. I know squat about thermodynamics, if someone told me that it wouldn't be an attack on my character. Just a statement.

Diverting to knowledge is a appeal to authorty/Ad Hominem. down to the grounds you are no longer attacking the argument you are attacking the person, you might not know squat about thermal dynamics but if you relay a basic concept in it, you have relayed a basic concept in it and that doesnt give somone the ability to go "because it works like this" and shrug off any argument. Or state "your not a authorty so you dont know". As Drop bear wrote, "is he right or wrong".

I dont make what the logical fallacies are either. (ironically) But its not the end all be all. As i wrote if a proper counter argument was written i would reply, that was not a proper counter argument, it didnt object to any premise or conclusion. (how ever terrible they may or may not have been, but thats to point out in a actual counter argument) Now to reiterate, the key part in this is the lack of a proper counter argument. Let me use a example, say if i was preaching about something, and somone walked up and went "your stupid" and left, that wouldnt be a basis for any argument, it would just be a Ad hominem/appeal to authority. (i slash the two as pending on specfics it can be either or both)

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Automatically less credible (unless they present some alternative credibility), but not automatically wrong. I'm unclear whether that falls under ad hominem, though. I'd need to see how it's fully defined. It is an attack on the credibility of the person making the statement (rather than the statement, itself), so it might fit.

If you havent done a proper class in it with the direction of a academic, it is a shitshow in looking this up and using it. And then there is little point or basis for listing to a partisan in a argument about what is and is not a fallacy (ironic i know). The fundemental bit i got was, you always attack the argument, what the person has or has not done has very little to do with anything 9/10. (playing off appeal to authorty and appeal to anecdotes as well as ad hominem) I just trust my premise is apt for the conclusion of a logical fallacy in this instance.

 

[geezer]

Ho-hum. At this point I honestly couldn't give a Rat sass!

 

[geezer]

BTW, Rat, I don't know if you folks use the term sass for impertinence. You probably say ...cheek? Very well. I won't give a Rat "cheek". Of course a cheek, by coincidence also refers to the same piece of the rat's anatomy I alluded too above, but is restricted to only one side. So you get double your money's worth the way I stated it, ...but I digress...