Ad hominem
Fallacious argumentative strategy that avoids genuine discussion of the topic by instead attacking the character, motive etc. of the person(s) associated with the argument

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for 'argument to the person'), refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. Wikipedia
An ad hominem argument targets the person rather than their argument. The abusive ad hominem argument attacks a person’s character to discredit them. The circumstantial ad hominem argument attributes bias to someone to discredit them. The ad hominem argument does not counter the logic of an opponent. Thus it is a logical fallacy.

Too much of this has been going on in both forums, also bad language, curse and swearing words, yet we tend to call ourselves '' Educated ''. Using curse words and derogatory language does not add anything to your view that you express to other people. If they are words that you dont use in front of your mother, sister, wife / girlfriend and children, then there is no reason to use them. And while on the subject, you know what they called a cowboy that would shoot a man in the back, so if you have something bad to say about another person walk up to him till you see the whites of his eyes and say it face to face.

I swear. And I am educated.
However, I will try to refrain from the swearing as a few people have commented about it occurring on the forums. I have been thinking about it anyway, so I may as well give it a go.

(I’ll say bloody but I’ll stop with the F word)

Your post assumes there is a right and a wrong way to argue. I maintain that any way to win an argument constitutes the right way. If your opponent has better facts or more knowledge, an ad hominem attack is a great way to even the playing field. Politicians and barristers have been doing it forever.

We strive to keep it inappropriate, petty and rather clannish mostly. It is our chosen digital home and it's always been that way I guess.

But, just so you wannabee psychos out there know, I'm the only mf on this board with the coveted rank of "Aging Tweaker" So, if you ain't The General, Lambo or one of the handful of mods that patrol these channels you best back up off me.

You'd be foolish to try to pull some latin argument move on a bad dude like me. I'm the Aging Tweaker, of course I'm bad. I didn't earn this rank by being a sweetheart goodie two shoes.

bossho wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 4:16 am We strive to keep it inappropriate, petty and rather clannish mostly. It is our chosen digital home and it's always been that way I guess.

But, just so you wannabee psychos out there know, I'm the only mf on this board with the coveted rank of "Aging Tweaker" So, if you ain't The General, Lambo or one of the handful of mods that patrol these channels you best back up off me.

You'd be foolish to try to pull some latin argument move on a bad dude like me. I'm the Aging Tweaker, of course I'm bad. I didn't earn this rank by being a sweetheart goodie two shoes.

‘Handful of mods’ username taken @username taken is the hardest working mod on here. I can’t recall the last time Jamie modded. Clutch does a little. General Mac will respond when prompted. Thank you UnT.

hdgh29 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:42 pm Your post assumes there is a right and a wrong way to argue. I maintain that any way to win an argument constitutes the right way. If your opponent has better facts or more knowledge, an ad hominem attack is a great way to even the playing field. Politicians and barristers have been doing it forever.

But some people, likely you, think the actual argument is won, when all that happened is that people disengaged because you were no longer actually presenting an argument about the topic, you were just attacking people for things completely unrelated to the topic. That’s not really winning. But you all give yourselves anyway.

violet wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 6:11 am

hdgh29 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:42 pm Your post assumes there is a right and a wrong way to argue. I maintain that any way to win an argument constitutes the right way. If your opponent has better facts or more knowledge, an ad hominem attack is a great way to even the playing field. Politicians and barristers have been doing it forever.

But some people, likely you, think the actual argument is won, when all that happened is that people disengaged because you were no longer actually presenting an argument about the topic, you were just attacking people for things completely unrelated to the topic. That’s not really winning. But you all give yourselves anyway.

hahaha my point totally proved - if this is not an ad hominem attack I don't know what is. Thank you for the QED.

IraHayes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 6:36 am An ad hominem attack is a sign of intellectual laziness and a lack of rational thought. A person who relies solely on personal insults and attacks as a way to win an argument is demonstrating their inability to engage in meaningful discourse and their lack of respect for the opposing viewpoint. This kind of behavior only serves to detract from the validity of the argument and discredits the person making the attack.
In any debate or discussion, it is important to focus on the facts and the logic behind the argument, rather than making personal attacks. A well-reasoned and well-supported argument will always be more effective than a cheap shot based on personal biases or emotions.
It is disappointing to see someone resort to such tactics, and it undermines the credibility of their argument. If you want to win an argument, do the work of presenting a well-constructed argument based on facts and logic, rather than trying to tear down your opponent with insults and personal attacks.

You are absolutely right. Unfortunately we do not live in a world where meaningful discourse and respect for others has much of a place. Where are these logical debates being held? Not in any recognisable parliament, or in the media. A perfect example is how Putin is condemned as a monstrous madman, and the motivations behind Russia's actions are not really examined or debated in the Western press. China similarly. We all love to despise President Xi, and look no further than a Guardian columnist's perspective. Maybe over your dinner table, or in a quiet bar with friends, even then I doubt if personal bias and emotions are left at the door.