“Only in a colloquial sense.”
And you don’t really know what colloquial means.
“Considering you’re an idiot, that doesn’t really concern me.
The actual certified instructors that charged me money to teach me, felt otherwise.
You’re just another random internet idiot.
I don’t give a fuck what you think.”
When you shoot yourself or someone else on purest accident, can you get a refund?
Where do you go to school?
Gyeongsang National University. Working on PhD in Linguistics. Only have my dissertation left to do, but the data gathering is murder.
[QUOTE=qbe9584;2656432]
And you don’t really know what colloquial means. [/quote]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colloquial
Those fit.
I am making the distinction between the fallacy and the term “ad hominem” being used to describe an insult, which is what you were doing.
Learn to use the quote function, 'tard.
[QUOTE=ChenPengFi;2656471]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colloquial
Those fit.
I am making the distinction between the fallacy and the term “ad hominem” being used to describe an insult, which is what you were doing.
Learn to use the quote function, 'tard.[/QUOTE]
Here’s your quote.
Ad Hominem is an attack “to the man.” It means when you can’t argue logic or facts, you attack the man. That you think the use of a colloquial insult changes the nature of the fallacy means you don’t understand what colloquial means, you also don’t understand what ad hominem arguments are, therefore you are a subliterate dick.
Check. Mate. (Eats a Snickers.)
[QUOTE=qbe9584;2656484]Here’s your quote.
Ad Hominem is an attack “to the man.” It means when you can’t argue logic or facts, you attack the man. That you think the use of a colloquial insult changes the nature of the fallacy means you don’t understand what colloquial means, you also don’t understand what ad hominem arguments are, therefore you are a subliterate dick.
Check. Mate. (Eats a Snickers.)[/QUOTE]
Hahahahaa, you’re such a dumbass, you don’t even understand what i’m talking about…
People use “ad hominem”, colloquially, to mean an insult.
This is incorrect, though it is often used in informal conversation.
An argumentum ad hominem attacks the person, instead of an argument in order to undermine the argument.
To simply insult someone does not qualify.
Furthermore the term “idiot” can simply be a correct observation, as in your case.
In this thread you, and your friend, were labeled idiots because of the arguments you set forth, not in order to undermine them.
Btw that’s not a Snickers you fucking retard…
Here ya go…
“to explain the difference for the benefit of those easily confused”
The problem is that people commonly object to any form of insult as ad hominems. But this is mistaken. An ad hominem fallacy is when you reject your opponent’s argument because of some characteristic of the advocate that is irrelevant to the content of the argument made. In general, what matters is the argument, not who makes it. (I will mention some exceptions below.) But not all “personal attacks” take this fallacious form. Rather than saying “you suck, therefore your argument does”, one might instead provide an adequate counterargument, then append: “your argument sucks, therefore you do”. Such gratuitous insults may be unwise, but the counterargument doesn’t depend upon them, so it’s a mistake to object to the counterargument (and ignore its substance) on that basis.
Further, I think insults aren’t always inappropriate. Creationists and homophobes, for example, tend to make revealingly bad arguments. In critiquing these arguments, we first aim to show why the conclusion doesn’t follow. But we are also in a position to draw a conclusion about the character of the person advancing the argument. Many arguments are so bad that they could not be honestly made by any informed rational person. Thus anyone who makes them must be either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest. In the course of criticising such an argument, a partisan may wish to point this out, just to emphasize how incredibly bad the argument really is. I don’t think it’s necessary wrong to do so. Some positions are so lacking in rational warrant that they deserve our scorn.
(my bold)
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/09/attacks-and-arguments.html
[QUOTE=qbe9584;2656539]It’s not that a gun will shoot itself, but when you reach for it too quickly and, for example, it catches in the holster, you accidently use your trigger finger, it slips, what have you, there is an opportunity to make your bad situation (being attacked) worse (being attacked with a self inflicted wound, of having injured some one you didn’t intend to shoot). [/QUOTE]
And lava.
Don’t forget lava.
I have lava insurance. Comes with the evil lair.
Qbe, you’re an idiot because of the assertions you are making.
It’s hilarious that you keep saying the gun is safer in your hand than in the holster.
Then you go on about having your finger on the trigger, clearly you are talking out of your ass.
That you still don’t know the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and an insult, even though i gave you a clear article highlighting the differences, supports my assertion that you are in fact retarded.
Scouting got me interested in my early teens, and I shot with family friends who were in the military. I continued shooting until college. At college, I did not have a gun, and after college I moved to Texas, where I could purchase my own weapon and had friends to shoot with.
I moved and picked up different information from different places. Not trolling.
[QUOTE=qbe9584;2656290]Also, I’m not a law enforcement officer. I am a hobbyist. Most everyone here is. So I will quote the pro’s here.[/QUOTE]This thread is interesting.
Anyway, if you do come back, Team Python, Diesel Tyke, and Vorpal, and Prone are all CONFIRMED LEOs. Yes, that means confirmed by an outside source. That means they had to provide legitimate and verifiable proof to receive their tag. Same holds for the guys that have military tags.
I know we have at least one Military person who has chosen not to receive a tag. Team Python is an actual INSTRUCTOR. You are the hobbyist so, stop trying to make your argument stronger by belittling others. That’s you engaging in an ad hominem attack.
[QUOTE=qbe9584;2656484]Here’s your quote.
Ad Hominem is an attack “to the man.” It means when you can’t argue logic or facts, you attack the man. That you think the use of a colloquial insult changes the nature of the fallacy means you don’t understand what colloquial means, you also don’t understand what ad hominem arguments are, therefore you are a subliterate dick.
Check. Mate. (Eats a Snickers.)[/QUOTE]Good lord, I don’t know what is stranger, a logical fallacy debate without me or a linguist PhD candidate that doesn’t understand semantics…wow.
"Anyway, if you do come back, Team Python, Diesel Tyke, and Vorpal, and Prone are all CONFIRMED LEOs. Yes, that means confirmed by an outside source. That means they had to provide legitimate and verifiable proof to receive their tag. Same holds for the guys that have military tags.
I know we have at least one Military person who has chosen not to receive a tag. Team Python is an actual INSTRUCTOR. You are the hobbyist so, stop trying to make your argument stronger by belittling others. That’s you engaging in an ad hominem attack."
Initially I wasn’t belittling anybody. I presented what I did, what I was told, and why I did it. The response from some folks, not all, was simply that I was an idiot and that accidents with guns never happen. So, yeah, the name calling on my part may not have been very mature, but I wasn’t the first.
The three things that sold me were the numbers on accidental discharge fatalities from the 80’s to now, a test, and recommendations about holsters. First, accidental discharge incidents dropped to a point where they were statistically insignificant. Second, was when somebody stated their credentials as an instructor and described a tear down test they did on a Glock where a dropped hammer didn’t cause the round to fire due to a firing pin safety. I investigate further and that is good data. Finally, descriptions of holsters that physically prevent you from drawing the gun with your finger on it clear up my issue about safety on the draw. Those points addressed every issue I had, and my mind was changed on the matter. If I had changed my mind because someone called me an idiot would you trust me with a gun at that point?
“Good lord, I don’t know what is stranger, a logical fallacy debate without me or a linguist PhD candidate that doesn’t understand semantics…wow.”
Technically, it isn’t a matter of semantics, but register. Dismissing an argument with only a reference to a personal quality is ad hominem. High register: “Though you are a fine musician, musicians know little about this.” Middle register: “You are only a musician. What do you know?” Low register: “Idiot.” The register changes but the dismissal does not deal with whatever argument has been presented. It only attacks the man.
The response from some folks, not all, was simply that I was an idiot and that accidents with guns never happen.
No.
The response, you asshole, was that you are an idiot because of your faulty assertions.
No one said ‘accidents never happen’, nice try at a strawman.
Now fuck off and read what has been posted before responding again you dipshit.
You are the one talking about having your finger on the trigger while sweeping your friends, and that a guin just sitting there is just going to go off.
Fuck, i haven’t heard such a concentrated pile of shit in a long while.
Kindly fuck off, i hope you shoot yourself and not an innocent bystander.
Assholes like you should be barred from firearm ownership.
[QUOTE=ChenPengFi;2657326]No.
The response, you asshole, was that you are an idiot because of your faulty assertions.
No one said ‘accidents never happen’, nice try at a strawman.
Now fuck off and read what has been posted before responding again you dipshit.
You are the one talking about having your finger on the trigger while sweeping your friends, and that a guin just sitting there is just going to go off.
Fuck, i haven’t heard such a concentrated pile of shit in a long while.
Kindly fuck off, i hope you shoot yourself and not an innocent bystander.
Assholes like you should be barred from firearm ownership.[/QUOTE]
…and here he is.
This is the quote from somebody a while back.
“You do realize virtually every cop in America carries their pistol with a round in the chamber, right?”
Okay, I can see that…
“And they miraculously manage to not shoot themselves.”
No cop anywhere accidentally shoots himself? The information about that had no qualifier. Not “rarely” or “in numbers at the very bottom” or “below X other cause of accident with firearms,” but that it doesn’t happen.
“With a proper holster and the proper training, it’s a non-issue.”
First mention of a holster, but not why it’s important. And until now I thought I had gotten proper training. See what I mean?
"You are the one talking about having your finger on the trigger…
I voiced a concern about accidentally having my finger on the trigger of a gun when I draw in a hurry, and that this may cause trouble. How is that concern crazy?
“…while sweeping your friends…”
Because bullets go other places and it might be into someone around you. It’s a valid concern.
“…and that a guin just sitting there is just going to go off.”
I was taught as a point of gun safety to treat all guns as loaded and ready to go off at all times.
And you are still a subliterate prick.
Back. Gammon. (Eats a Mars Bar. Almondy goodness!)
[QUOTE=qbe9584;2657323]"Anyway, if you do come back, Team Python, Diesel Tyke, and Vorpal, and Prone are all CONFIRMED LEOs. Yes, that means confirmed by an outside source. That means they had to provide legitimate and verifiable proof to receive their tag. Same holds for the guys that have military tags.
I know we have at least one Military person who has chosen not to receive a tag. Team Python is an actual INSTRUCTOR. You are the hobbyist so, stop trying to make your argument stronger by belittling others. That’s you engaging in an ad hominem attack."
Initially I wasn’t belittling anybody. I presented what I did, what I was told, and why I did it. The response from some folks, not all, was simply that I was an idiot and that accidents with guns never happen. So, yeah, the name calling on my part may not have been very mature, but I wasn’t the first.
The three things that sold me were the numbers on accidental discharge fatalities from the 80’s to now, a test, and recommendations about holsters. First, accidental discharge incidents dropped to a point where they were statistically insignificant. Second, was when somebody stated their credentials as an instructor and described a tear down test they did on a Glock where a dropped hammer didn’t cause the round to fire due to a firing pin safety. I investigate further and that is good data. Finally, descriptions of holsters that physically prevent you from drawing the gun with your finger on it clear up my issue about safety on the draw. Those points addressed every issue I had, and my mind was changed on the matter. If I had changed my mind because someone called me an idiot would you trust me with a gun at that point?
“Good lord, I don’t know what is stranger, a logical fallacy debate without me or a linguist PhD candidate that doesn’t understand semantics…wow.”
Technically, it isn’t a matter of semantics, but register. Dismissing an argument with only a reference to a personal quality is ad hominem. High register: “Though you are a fine musician, musicians know little about this.” Middle register: “You are only a musician. What do you know?” Low register: “Idiot.” The register changes but the dismissal does not deal with whatever argument has been presented. It only attacks the man.[/QUOTE]
No, it is rhetoric, semantics, and logical fallacies all rolled up into one.
LOL@your continued uneducated asshatery.