Discord Is Hell

[HEM]

I appreciate those who have come to my defense, but NK's post was a perfectly valid rebuttal to my original piece (which was also slightly hot around the edges). I wish NK had replied to my reply to continue the dialogue, but I think we have both been able to make our points clear here.

 

[Mousebumples]

But let's dispense with the ad hominem attacks,

Have to point this out, I don't think anyone tried to disagree with this article based on who HEM is.

You do realize that ad hominem attacks refer not to "attacking HEM because he's HEM" but instead to the "attacking the player and not the argument" concept, right? Namecalling is ad hominem.

I just reread the thread and I don't see anything that could even loosely be called ad hominem attacks. NK was oddly vitriolic, but HEM took it in stride.

Fair enough. I was more countering Rand's strange statement about what ad hominem meant. I had only quickly read through the previous pages, and while I didn't recall any ad hominem attacks, that didn't mean that they weren't there, and I was too lazy/tired to search for them myself.

 

[JayDee]

Eh, reading is overrated anyways.

 

[Rach]

​

This article could have been much improved with the above.

 

[Rand]

But let's dispense with the ad hominem attacks,

Have to point this out, I don't think anyone tried to disagree with this article based on who HEM is.

You do realize that ad hominem attacks refer not to "attacking HEM because he's HEM" but instead to the "attacking the player and not the argument" concept, right? Namecalling is ad hominem.

Name-calling isn't okay, but it is just name-calling. Ad hominem ("[argument] of the man") is a statement attempting to refute an argument by attacking the speaker. Examples.

 

[hyanygo]

​

This article could have been much improved with the above.

Churchill I think
Ish.