Ad Hominem - why do people do it?

Have you decided yet?
IMO the topic of ad hominem argument has been well and truly exhausted.
If you chose one - that is to say, one /1 - other form of verbal hostility to examine, I would be happy to continue.

Yes, about that...

which you rephrased

which means something quite different. If the dynamic was changed, I ask that you consider who changed it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope still on the same one... "Why do we do it?"
An inquiry into
Motive. Why the motive?
Intent.
Human nature,
The psychology of abuse.
Courage and cowardice.
Integrity and honesty
Good will, good faith- abuse of,

Hope to further discover:
What are the weaknesses in the speakers character that compels a speaker to make use of ad hominem arguments?
What training or therapy might be applied to mitigate those weaknesses?
It appears that impulse control and a general lack of self restraint is involved, would learning discipline via martial arts or military service be of benefit?


We have just managed to get through the "What is it?"part. ( to some extent )
Perhaps we can get on with the Why do we do it? bit..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The internet makes it easy for some people to behave in a way that they might not dare consider behaving, if they were face to face with their ''opponents.''

Then again...there's Trump...

Do you use any form of social media, QQ? I have a few friends whose posting styles on Facebook for example, are very different than how they come across in person. They are more daring and blunt online, than in person -human nature? Maybe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Regarding the title subject,A "what it is" pretty much answers Q "why is it".
A: A fallacious argument designed to shift the argument from the evidence to the presenter.
Why do people do it?
To shift argument from the evidence to the presenter.
(EG: Prosecutor: "Exhibit A: the knife; Exhibit B: the perp's fingerprints on the knife; Exhibit C: the victim's blood on the knife. Conclusion: the perp stabbed the victim.
Prosecutor's motive: to achieve a "guilty" sentence; underlying motive: to win the trial.
Defense Attorney: Objection! The prosecutor should be disbarred!
Defender's motive: to deflect focus from exhibits detrimental to his case; underlying motive: to win the trial)
Case closed.

are off topic

 

yeah it is sometimes quite confusing.
I have a gaming buddy(*) located in Utah who said the other day, on just this subject, that when he finally got onto face book he had to place most of his friends, some quite close, on Ignore.
(*) Gaming buddy refers to a person who plays multi player video games that is a member of your team.

Social media provides people with a soap box and little wonder given the amount of frustration out there that social media became and still is so popular.

Is it a good thing to give people minimally regulated access to the world?
Example : Trump tweets.

edit: yes I do use social media, close family and very few friends. It's a way to maintain contact in the event of an emergency, or other need.. oh and the manipulated advertising and news feeds are amazingly effective marketing tools...

 

so why is winning more important than the truth?

It's a deep question... perhaps too deep for sciforums.
Why are there so many innocent people locked up in prison for crimes they didn't commit?
Why are all those associated guilty people still free?
"For every innocent man in jail there is a guilty man still free" sort of outcome.

 

Yeah, this is a phenomenon all to its own - close friends/family with whom you discover you have incompatible ideologies (usually on issues of politics, immigration or healthcare).

But that's a separate subject.

 

Do you mean in a discussion or in a courtroom?
They're different.

In a courtroom, truth is not the goal - it is the mandate of the defense lawyer to get the best outcome for her client as possible. That means poking anything and everything to see if it can give.

 

no... just generally.

 

why isn't truth the goal?
Is using an ad hominem just simply a futile attempt at avoiding the truth?

If anything the AHA strategy exposes the truth... about the user of it..

 

Because everyone has their own truths. For the most part, truth is not universal (there are as many interpretations of an event as there are observers).
And people invest a lot of their ego in their own interpretations of the world. So, having to question it is painful.

 

good points...
Slight aside:
Can I ask?
Have you had the experience of dealing with a clinically diagnosed pathological liar?

 

I have not.

This thread is pretty far-ranging, is it not?

 

But falsehood is.

 

wow!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gotta disagree.

I have been in a friendship-ending situation where one person was certain that a certain action took place, and another person is certain that it did not.

Since everybody has their own interpretations of truth, it follows that some people will require others' interpretation to be false.

 

Yeah we are going a bit too far with it. I guess... so I will restrain myself so that something can be achieved here..

You do not want to have to deal with a pathological liar.. It is totally destructive for everyone involved, even in a clinical setting...

Could I state the following and be valid?
The use of ad hominem is essentially:

• an act of futile intellectual dishonesty
  
• a lie that seeks to minimize the humiliation of defeat
  
• a lie that seeks to reduce the revelation of the users intellectual truth.
  
• an act of cowardice

anything else?

 

That's not true. It doesn't "follow", I mean - of course in fact some people require others' interpretations to be necessarily false if different, but they don't have to do that. It's not logically necessary, if one accepts the quite reasonable and well illustrated premise that a single truth can underlie many different descriptions and interpretations, none of which are false.

See: the blind wise men and the elephant.

 

An often successful and widespread propaganda technique.

Ad hominem arguments are not necessarily based on lies.

 

perhaps but Iceaura's statement is in fact deeper than anything presented so far...IMO... ( still thinking on it... "we all know when we are lying or not fully stating the truth")
But it appears a pathological liar doesn't know and that is one of the reasons why they are diagnosed as a pathological liar. (no insight into their lies)