On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 11:36:13 +0800, wij wrote:
It is you who proved yourself an idiot, worse, a liar, EVERYDAY.
olcott's claim form H(D)=0 is correct, H(D)=1 is correct, both are
correct...
'I' was talking about HH,HH2,HHH, DD,DDD,...not H(D)!! ... numerous.
And recently, 'I' was not refuting HP. HP is correct. 'I' was refuting
Linz's proof, and HHH(DD)=1 is correct!! (Undecidable and HHH(DD)=1 are
both correct!)
A couple days before, you have shown again you don't understand basic
logic (AND,IF,...)
You cannot construct a TM that compute the length of its input.
Your understanding of C/Assembly is shown very low, I never saw anyone
is lower.
No one in internet I ever saw is lower than yours. Keep blind yourself, 'genius'.
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem,
refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the
character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an
argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids
genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant,
but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or
background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or
physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence
"B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing
the point of the debate.
Other uses of the term ad hominem are more traditional, referring to
arguments tailored to fit a particular audience, and may be encountered in specialized philosophical usage. These typically refer to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them,
while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments. Ad
hominem arguments were first studied in ancient Greece; John Locke revived
the examination of ad hominem arguments in the 17th century.
A common misconception is that an ad hominem attack is synonymous with an insult. This is not true, although some ad hominem arguments may be
considered insulting by the recipient.
History
Aristotle (384–322 BC) is credited with raising the distinction between personal and logical arguments.[1]
The various types of ad hominem arguments have been known in the West
since at least the ancient Greeks. Aristotle, in his work Sophistical Refutations, detailed the fallaciousness of putting the questioner but not
the argument under scrutiny.[2] His description was somewhat different
from the modern understanding, referring to a class of sophistry that
applies an ambiguously worded question about people to a specific person.
The proper refutation, he wrote, is not to debate the attributes of the
person (solutio ad hominem) but to address the original ambiguity.[3] Many examples of ancient non-fallacious ad hominem arguments are preserved in
the works of the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus. In these
arguments, the concepts and assumptions of the opponents are used as part
of a dialectical strategy against them to demonstrate the unsoundness of
their own arguments and assumptions. In this way, the arguments are to the person (ad hominem), but without attacking the properties of the
individuals making the arguments.[4] This kind of argument is also known
as "argument from commitment".
Italian Galileo Galilei and British philosopher John Locke also examined
the argument from commitment, a form of the ad hominem argument, meaning examining an argument on the basis of whether it stands true to the
principles of the person carrying the argument. In the mid-19th century,
the modern understanding of the term ad hominem started to take shape,
with the broad definition given by English logician Richard Whately.
According to Whately, ad hominem arguments were "addressed to the peculiar circumstances, character, avowed opinions, or past conduct of the individual".[5]
Over time, the term acquired a different meaning; by the beginning of the
20th century, it was linked to a logical fallacy, in which a debater,
instead of disproving an argument, attacked their opponent. This approach
was also popularized in philosophical textbooks of the mid-20th century,
and it was challenged by Australian philosopher Charles Leonard Hamblin in
the second half of the 20th century. In a detailed work, he suggested that
the inclusion of a statement against a person in an argument does not necessarily make it a fallacious argument since that particular phrase is
not a premise that leads to a conclusion. While Hamblin's criticism was
not widely accepted, Canadian philosopher Douglas N. Walton examined the fallaciousness of the ad hominem argument further.[6] Except in
specialized philosophical discourse, contemporary use of the term ad
hominem describes a direct attack on the character and ethos of a person,
in an attempt to refute their argument.[7]
Terminology
The Latin phrase argumentum ad hominem stands for 'argument against the person'.[8] In this context, ad means 'against', but could also mean 'to'
or 'towards'.[9]
The terms ad mulierem and ad feminam have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female[10] but the term hominem
(accusative of homo) was gender-neutral in Latin.[11]
Types of ad hominem arguments
See also: List of fallacies
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies,
more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[12]
Ad hominem fallacies can be separated into various types, such as tu
quoque, circumstantial ad hominem, guilt by association, and abusive ad hominem. All of them are similar to the general scheme of ad hominem
argument, that is instead of dealing with the essence of someone's
argument or trying to refute it, the interlocutor is attacking the
character of the proponent of the argument and concluding that it is a sufficient reason to drop the initial argument.[13]
Tu quoque
Main article: Tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally 'you also') is a response to an ad hominem argument that itself goes ad hominem.[14]
Tu quoque /[tuː koʊ.kweɪ]/ appears as:
A makes a claim a.
B attacks the character of A by claiming they hold negative property x.
A defends themself by attacking B, saying they also hold the same property x.[15]
An example given by professor George Wrisley to illustrate the above is:
A businessman and a politician are giving a lecture at a university about
how good his company is and how nicely the system works. A student asks
him "Is it true that you and your company are selling weapons to third
world rulers who use those arms against their own people?" and the
businessman replies "Is it true that your university gets funding by the
same company that you are claiming is selling guns to those countries? You
are not a white dove either". The student's ad hominem accusation is not fallacious, as it is relevant to the narrative the businessman is trying
to project. On the other hand, the businessman's attack on the student
(that is, the student being inconsistent) is irrelevant to the opening narrative. So the businessman's tu quoque response is fallacious.[16]
Canadian philosopher Christopher Tindale approaches somewhat different the
tu quoque fallacy. According to Tindale, a tu quoque fallacy appears when
a response to an argument is made on the history of the arguer. This
argument is also invalid because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true, then source A may be a hypocrite or even changed their
mind, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. A common example, given by Tindale, is when a doctor advises
a patient to lose weight, but the patient argues that there is no need for
him to go on a diet because the doctor is also overweight.[17]
Circumstantial
Main article: Bulverism
Circumstantial ad hominem' points out that someone is in circumstances
(for instance, their job, wealth, property, or relations) such that they
are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on
the bias of a source. As with other types of the argument, the
circumstantial ad hominem could be fallacious or not. It could be
fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make
the argument invalid; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument
that a claim is incorrect due to its source). But it also may be a sound argument, if the premises are correct and the bias is relevant to the argument.[18]
A simple example is: a father may tell his daughter not to start smoking because she will damage her health, and she may point out that he is or
was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that smoking might cause
various diseases. Her father's inconsistency is not a proper reason to
reject his claim.[19]
Douglas N. Walton, philosopher and pundit on informal fallacies, argues
that a circumstantial ad hominem argument can be non-fallacious. This
could be the case when someone (A) attacks the personality of another
person (B), making an argument (a) while the personality of B is relevant
to argument a, i.e. B talks as an authority figure. To illustrate this reasoning, Walton gives the example of a witness at a trial: if he had
been caught lying and cheating in his own life, should the jury take his
word for granted? No, according to Walton.[20]
Guilt by association
Main article: Association fallacy
Guilt by association, that is accusing an arguer because of his alleged connection with a discredited person or group, can sometimes also be a
type of ad hominem fallacy when the argument attacks a source because of
the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.[21]
This form of the argument is as follows:[21]
Individual S makes claim C.
Individual S is also associated with Group G, who has an unfavorable
reputation
Therefore, individual S and his views are questionable.
Academic Leigh Kolb gives as an example that the 2008 US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin attacked Barack Obama for having worked with Bill
Ayers, who had been a leader in the Weather Underground terrorist group in
the 1960s. Despite Obama denouncing every act of terrorism, his opponents
still associated him with terrorism.[22]
Guilt by association is frequently found in social and political debates.
It also appears after major events (such as scandals and terrorism) linked
to a specific group. Kolb cites the peak of attacks against Muslims in the
US after the September 11 attacks.[22]
Abusive ad hominem
See also: Name calling and Verbal abuse
Abusive ad hominem argument (or direct ad hominem) is associated with an
attack to the character of the person carrying an argument. This kind of argument, besides usually being fallacious, is also counterproductive, as
a proper dialogue is hard to achieve after such an attack.[23][24][25]
Key issues in examining an argument to determine whether it is an ad
hominem fallacy or not are whether the accusation against the person
stands true or not, and whether the accusation is relevant to the
argument. An example is a dialogue at the court, where the attorney cross- examines an eyewitness, bringing to light the fact that the witness was convicted in the past for lying. If the attorney's conclusion is that the witness is lying, that would be wrong. But if his argument would be that
the witness should not be trusted, that would not be a fallacy.[26]
Argument from commitment
An ad hominem argument from commitment is a type of valid argument that employs, as a dialectical strategy, the exclusive use of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people
hold to be true. This usage is generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage or in pre-20th century usages.[27] This type of
argument is also known as the ex concessis argument (Latin for 'from what
has been conceded already').[28]
Use in debates
Ad hominem fallacies are considered to be uncivil and do not help creating
a constructive atmosphere for dialogue to flourish.[29] An ad hominem
attack is an attack on the character of the target who tends to feel the necessity to defend himself or herself from the accusation of being hypocritical. Walton has noted that it is so powerful of an argument that
it is employed in many political debates. Since it is associated with negativity and dirty tricks, it has gained a bad fame, of being always fallacious.[30]
Author Eithan Orkibi, having studied Israeli politics prior to elections, described two other forms of ad hominem attacks that are common during
election periods. They both depend on the collective memory shared by both proponents and the audience. The first is the "precedent ad hominem",
according to which the previous history of someone means that they do not
fit for the office. It goes like this: "My opponent was (allegedly) wrong
in the past, therefore he is wrong now". The second one is a behavioral ad hominem: "my opponent was not decent in his arguments in the past, so he
is not now either". These kinds of attacks are based on the inability of
the audience to have a clear view of the amount of false statements by
both parts of the debate.[31]
Criticism as a fallacy
Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and
that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[32] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning
(discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving
facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.
[33]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)