User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: How our universities became sheep factories

  1. #11
    Points: 74,611, Level: 66
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 839
    Overall activity: 39.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314971
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,616
    Points
    74,611
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,088x in 12,283 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Wrong again. An attribute of a source is not an attribute of person. A source is a thing.

    Get it right hanger4
    I think if you do a little research, jet, you will find that, despite its name, an argumentum ad hominem does not always unfairly discount statements by, or call into question the character or motives of, an individual, but can also refer to such treatment of a publication or even a different type of company altogether - for instance dismissing a press release reporting on the safety of a product from a company that makes that product.

    That said, it's true, as you say, that the ad hom label is frequently misused on this forum, as I used to point out a lot before I gave up.

    As for the facts - which I sadly suspect them to be - presented in the article cited in the OP, I am not in the least surprised...and though the universities cited in the article are in the U.K., by all reports a similar situation has been developing in this country for some time. I read a book in 1995 called 'The Dictatorship of Virtue', which I'm going to have to dig out and read again, because it's beginning to look like prophecy.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  2. #12

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    You don't know the meaning either eh? I don't know what it is with you or @DGUtley or @Chris or @hanger4 that you guys just can't read the definition of ad-hom and then post accordingly instead of ignorantly trying to drag in your own definitions and horribly misplacing them.

    AND - your source is a far right rag with absolutely no hope of legitimacy from an article titled: How our universities became sheep factories.
    When did I botch them application of ad hom Mr. Thesis?
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  3. #13
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496570
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,580x in 94,412 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    You don't know the meaning either eh? I don't know what it is with you or @DGUtley or @Chris or @hanger4 that you guys just can't read the definition of ad-hom and then post accordingly instead of ignorantly trying to drag in your own definitions and horribly misplacing them.

    AND - your source is a far right rag with absolutely no hope of legitimacy from an article titled: How our universities became sheep factories.
    You stumbled onto ad hom again.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  4. #14
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    I think if you do a little research, jet, you will find that, despite its name, an argumentum ad hominem does not always unfairly discount statements by, or call into question the character or motives of, an individual, but can also refer to such treatment of a publication or even a different type of company altogether - for instance dismissing a press release reporting on the safety of a product from a company that makes that product.

    That said, it's true, as you say, that the ad hom label is frequently misused on this forum, as I used to point out a lot before I gave up.

    As for the facts - which I sadly suspect them to be - presented in the article cited in the OP, I am not in the least surprised...and though the universities cited in the article are in the U.K., by all reports a similar situation has been developing in this country for some time. I read a book in 1995 called 'The Dictatorship of Virtue', which I'm going to have to dig out and read again, because it's beginning to look like prophecy.
    @Peter1469, @hanger4, @Chris, @DGUtley

    Let's get a little clarification: I love these things because it gives me a chance to go back into my books. This one a college book I still have:

    Burden of Proof; Mark S Crossman, 2006 Cengage Leanring.

    Ad- hominem occurs when a speaker attacks or speakers attack some aspect of their opponent or their opponent’s sources, such as their appearance or their intelligence. The focus of the debate should be on the worth of ideas. Part of the reason that many novice arguers get very angry and defensive when arguing is that they view any argument as a personal attack.

    While it is true that personal issues related to a source should not be relevant in a debate, there are times when issues such as character could play a role in a legitimate argument. A person who has been convicted of perjury, for example, might not be viewed as a credible witness. It’s perfectly legitimate to question the qualifications of a source, or to examine their potential bias on an issue. It is not acceptable however, to simply call them names and dismiss their opinion without explaining the grounds for the dismissal.
    The book refutes you Wolf; sorry. Personal attacks are ad-hom. As you can see now, attacking a source; not the writer, but the information in that source, because of bias or just plain erroneous information - is clearly not considered ad-hominem.

    ** That's how you botched it DGUtely
    Last edited by jet57; 01-16-2022 at 01:20 PM.

  5. #15
    Points: 74,611, Level: 66
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 839
    Overall activity: 39.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314971
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,616
    Points
    74,611
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,088x in 12,283 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    @Peter1469, @hanger4, @Chris, @DGUtley

    Let's get a little clarification: I love these things because it gives me a chance to go back into my books. This one a college book I still have:

    Burden of Proof; Mark S Crossman, 2006 Cengage Leanring.



    The book refutes you Wolf; sorry. Personal attacks are ad-hom. As you can see now, attacking a source; not the writer, but the information in that source, because of bias or just plain erroneous information - is clearly not considered ad-hominem.

    ** That's how you botched it DGUtely
    You may be right, in this case, jet. I frequently see personal attacks on sources, whether on an individual or an entity such as a media source, referred to as ad homs, but that doesn't mean that those references are technically correct. You have to admit, though, that dismissing a story because of where it comes from is a logical fallacy, however it's labeled - don't you? "Hasty Generalization"?
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    RMNIXON (01-16-2022)

  7. #16
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    I think if you do a little research, jet, you will find that, despite its name, an argumentum ad hominem does not always unfairly discount statements by, or call into question the character or motives of, an individual, but can also refer to such treatment of a publication or even a different type of company altogether - for instance dismissing a press release reporting on the safety of a product from a company that makes that product.

    That said, it's true, as you say, that the ad hom label is frequently misused on this forum, as I used to point out a lot before I gave up.

    As for the facts - which I sadly suspect them to be - presented in the article cited in the OP, I am not in the least surprised...and though the universities cited in the article are in the U.K., by all reports a similar situation has been developing in this country for some time. I read a book in 1995 called 'The Dictatorship of Virtue', which I'm going to have to dig out and read again, because it's beginning to look like prophecy.

    Ad hom was used correctly in this case. Jet dismissed data simply because the source of it he disliked, and actually the intermediate source for the real source of the data was Census data.

    True, an insult is not necessarily ad hom. But to admit to that is to admit to violating the rules.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (01-16-2022)

  9. #17
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    You may be right, in this case, jet. I frequently see personal attacks on sources, whether on an individual or an entity such as a media source, referred to as ad homs, but that doesn't mean that those references are technically correct. You have to admit, though, that dismissing a story because of where it comes from is a logical fallacy, however it's labeled - don't you? "Hasty Generalization"?
    I would disagree on dismantling a story based on it's source. I always try and use objectivity in my sources to avoid such things. The far right here however ignores that credibility standard and just posts whatever fits their narrative from unhinged bias sources, so attacking THOSE particular sources and OR those biased writers on their lack of credibility, as shown in my reference, is NOT ad-hom and I do it regularly to drive home the point that if one expects to be taken seriously then they need to think not just about what they're saying, but where they're getting their information from: that is the number one problem with politics and issues today.

    Thanks for responding.

  10. #18
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    You may be right, in this case, jet. I frequently see personal attacks on sources, whether on an individual or an entity such as a media source, referred to as ad homs, but that doesn't mean that those references are technically correct. You have to admit, though, that dismissing a story because of where it comes from is a logical fallacy, however it's labeled - don't you? "Hasty Generalization"?

    Here is the original post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    The middle class has shrunk but so has the poor, meaning more are rich.

    When requested I provided the source of the image. Note that the actual source of the data is census data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    And here is jet's ad hom:

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Your source has a definite political stance. It's no good.
    He attacks the messenger and leaves the message standing.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (01-16-2022)

  12. #19
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @Peter1469, @hanger4, @Chris, @DGUtley

    My reference source for ad-hominem should be a sticky...

  13. #20
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I would disagree on dismantling a story based on it's source. I always try and use objectivity in my sources to avoid such things. The far right here however ignores that credibility standard and just posts whatever fits their narrative from unhinged bias sources, so attacking THOSE particular sources and OR those biased writers on their lack of credibility, as shown in my reference, is NOT ad-hom and I do it regularly to drive home the point that if one expects to be taken seriously then they need to think not just about what they're saying, but where they're getting their information from: that is the number one problem with politics and issues today.

    Thanks for responding.

    What you usually do to "prove" your opinion is cite an opinion that agrees. That's the opposite of ad home, that's appeal to authority. In order to "prove" something you must present an argument that can then be debated.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts