Steemit Critical Thinking Miniseries #9: Ad Hominem Fallacy [dTube]
This is the miniseries that exists because of support from Steemians!
This is part 5, about the ad hominem fallacy so often used in arguments
- Part 1 is available here: https://steemit.com/blog/@davidpakman/ccxxnydh
- Part 2 is available here: https://steemit.com/blog/@davidpakman/bhqbdz74
- Part 3 is available here: https://steemit.com/blog/@davidpakman/zedqsq2u
- Part 4 is available here: https://steemit.com/blog/@davidpakman/56o28681
- Part 5 is available here: https://steemit.com/blog/@davidpakman/lx9a8r1a
- Part 6 is available here: https://steemit.com/blog/@davidpakman/0epuk2h1
- Part 7 is available here: https://steemit.com/science/@davidpakman/p6ffpkx7
- Part 8 is available here: https://steemit.com/blog/@davidpakman/qn1ts5ky
If you have suggestions for future miniseries, let me know in a reply!
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
I have "faith in humanity issues" that prevent me from believing this series will be profitable to you David, but I think it is a great idea for a series on Steem and you are well-suited to deliver it just because of your demeanor and presentation style. I for one am really enjoying it and I applaud the effort.
thanks very much, I appreciate it
Maybe instead of "Part X available here" you could write the title of each part :)
Ah yeah, I will start doing that going forward
I think Racist and Sexist are some of the most frequently used Ad Hominems, because these aren't reasons why an argument is wrong, but rather they are conceptual tools for showing how someone's reasoning may be flawed...
yep, definitely agree
Nice post...
Thank for sharing...
Nice post David Pakman Pacquiao!
Awesome information. Makes it a little bit easier to sift through these reporters bullcrap.
Your first example isn't the best example for an ad hominem (in my opinion anyway). Because in "you're just paranoid" it could to be implied, that he is being paranoid about this subject in particular. An ad hominem would be to claim, that John is a paranoid person in overall and than to conclude, anything he is concerned about must be absurred.
It sounds more like a different fallacy, "appeal to the stone", because Steve seems to be inferring, that John is being paranoid, because his claim is absurred. However, Steve just inferres, that his claim is being absurred, he doesn't show how his claim is being absurred.
post that is very good and enlightening to us who are still beginners. thank you. from @salyannur
Leaving comments asking for votes, follows, or other self promotional messages could be seen as spam.
Your Reputation Could be a Tasty Snack with the Wrong Comment!
Thank You! ⚜
Very very interesting
very good post,@davidpakman