D&D 5E 5e and the Cheesecake Factory: Explaining Good Enough

[Paul Farquhar]

Ad hominem attacks are covered as part of middle school and high school level English units on how to present an argument. I think expecting most people to be familiar with material any 9th grader in the United States is expected to learn is a pretty low bar for conversation.

I don't live in the USA. As a UK teacher, I can tell you it isn't in on the UK National Curriculum.

 

[Maxperson]

I believe it means something like "the man". Which, taken literally, makes no sense in the context. Used to describe a type of argument, it's jargon.

It means, "Against the person," which accurately describes the fallacy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It means, "Against the person," which accurately describes the fallacy.

Really? You think that is how an ancient Roman would interpret it? What against the person? Does is make sense to say "A totalitarian dictatorship is ad hominem"? I don't know, I'm not fluent in Latin, and I doubt many of the people bandying it about are either. Whatever, it was not part of my education.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I believe it means something like "the man". Which, taken literally, makes no sense in the context. Used to describe a type of argument, it's jargon.

I don't give a rat's ass what it originally meant and how it was used in context in Classical Latin. In modern English, it's used to describe an argument that attacks the opponent's character while ignoring the actual content of their argument. Newsflash: words can and do change meaning over time, as they enter different contexts, and if they get poached by other languages. To try and dismiss the usage of a word by dissecting the etymology of its original language is either not understanding linguistics or just being a total pedant.

Non-English example: テンション is a Japanese word meaning excitement or hype. In a sentence: 「今日、テンションが高いんだけど、どうしたの？」Translates to "You seem pretty excited today. Whats going on?"

Except that テンション is literally just the English word "tension" transliterated into katakana. Tension in English can be used to describe a heightened emotional state, but in English it usually has a much more negative connotation. Alternatively, it can mean "The condition of being held in a state between two or more forces, which are acting in opposition to each other", or "Force transmitted through a rope, string, cable, or similar object." Not how テンション is used in Japanese at all; the word itself was borrowed from English but its meaning and context changed.

Just one example. There's many more examples, usually either from English borrowing words wholesale from another language, or vice versa; and in both scenarios sometimes the meanings of the word are different between the original language and the language that borrowed it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't give a rat's ass what it originally meant and how it was used in context in Classical Latin. In modern English, it's used to describe an argument that attacks the opponent's character while ignoring the actual content of their argument.

I think we have established that that is in AMERICAN English. English as used in other circles can be quite different. That's what makes something jargon. It's language that seems familiar to the people in your usual circle, but might be incomprehensible, or have different meaning entirely, to someone outside of that circle. It is, therefore, the language of elitism and exclusion.

And you haven't established what makes it a fallacy - i.e. not true. I can see what makes an attack against the person wrong, but that is not the same as false. And that wrongness rather fades when the person is long dead.

Do you call it a fallacy simply because you have been taught to call it a fallacy at school?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I think we have established that that is in AMERICAN English. English as used in other circles can be quite different. That's what makes something jargon. It's language that seems familiar to the people in your usual circle, but might be incomprehensible, or have different meaning entirely, to someone outside of that circle. It is, therefore, the language of elitism and exclusion.

At this point you aren't even describing jargon but have somehow shifted into complaining about differences in vocabulary between dialects whilst still calling it "jargon". Which, seeing as you're from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, makes your complaints about supposed "elitism" extremely hard to take seriously, given that the English practically invented elitism. Small consolation for me that the sun finally sets on you all. And even then, forgive me if I'm skeptical of the claim that the term ad hominem is incomprehensible and completely foreign to any of the 40-odd dialects of British English.

I have two cousins from Singapore. Their standard English is pretty good, as is their Mandarin, so we can communicate with each other without much issue; but they also speak the local creole, Singlish, which is largely English based but incorporates words from Malay, Mandarin, and Hokkien. When they talk in Singlish, they become completely incomprehensible to my Canadian ears. But for me to accuse them of using the vocabulary and syntax of their native language as "elitist" would be both culturally insensitive and just plain ridiculous.

And you haven't established what makes it a fallacy - i.e. not true. I can see what makes an attack against the person wrong, but that is not the same as false. And that wrongness rather fades when the person is long dead.

Do you call it a fallacy simply because you have been taught to call it a fallacy at school?

A note: fallacies are not "false statements". They are specifically examples of errors in reasoning and logic that render rhetorical statements unpersuasive. Their truth value is independent of their poor construction as arguments, the latter of which is why they are classified as fallacies.

With that in mind, argumentum ad hominem is a subset of the fallacy of irrelevance, an argument that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, failing to refute the opposing argument by completely missing the point. Unlike a formal fallacy, a statement which is fallacious because the internal logic of the statement does not follow rendering the whole statement non sequitur, ad hominem is a type of informal fallacy, which are errors in reasoning rather than logic; the statement is logically consistent, but it mishandles or even ignores the content of the debate, and thus is unpersuasive. An ad hominem statement is fallacious, despite being logically consistent with itself, because it does not refute the opposing argument but instead serves to divert and mislead the audience's attention by attacking the opponent's character, creating the perception that the contents of the opposing argument are erroneous due to their association with the opponent's character, despite never actually refuting the argument itself.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

At this point you aren't even describing jargon but have somehow shifted into complaining about differences in vocabulary between dialects whilst still calling it "jargon". Which, seeing as you're from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, makes your complaints about supposed "elitism" extremely hard to take seriously, given that the English practically invented elitism.

Sure, it's a big problem here. That's why I call it out.

NB: I'm Scottish, not English.

creating the perception that the contents of the opposing argument are erroneous due to their association with the opponent's character, despite never actually refuting the argument itself

I have no interest in the argument - I don't even know what it is - something about celestials on the head of a pin? I just think people should give more consideration to whom they choose to cite.

You don't get clean water from a dirty pipe.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Really? You think that is how an ancient Roman would interpret it? What against the person? Does is make sense to say "A totalitarian dictatorship is ad hominem"? I don't know, I'm not fluent in Latin, and I doubt many of the people bandying it about are either. Whatever, it was not part of my education.

Yes, that how it would be interpreted. The full term in latin is argumentun ad hominiem, or argument against the the person.

I believe that your education probably didn't cover it, but that's not a good reason to insist on remaining ignorant, is it? "I wasn't taught that in school," just doesn't seem a great argument. Nor does labeling something your ignorant of as jargon actually make it jargon. I mean, this is a board about something you weren't taught in school and that is actually full of real jargon, so, under these arguments, is it time to abandon RPGs?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, that how it would be interpreted. The full term in latin is argumentun ad hominiem, or argument against the the person.

Thank you for the full and proper transition. That's what I mean - in it's shortened form, and attached to the word "fallacy" it becomes a jargon - something that is trotted out on the assumption that everyone understands what you are talking about.

I believe that your education probably didn't cover it, but that's not a good reason to insist on remaining ignorant, is it?

I'm not insisting on remaining ignorant, I'm asking people to explain what they mean using language I understand.

"I wasn't taught that in school," just doesn't seem a great argument. Nor does labeling something your ignorant of as jargon actually make it jargon. I mean, this is a board about something you weren't taught in school and that is actually full of real jargon, so, under these arguments, is it time to abandon RPGs?

RPGs are certainly full of jargon, it's important we frequently check ourselves and make sure we explain the terminology we use.

 

[Morrus]

I think we have established that that is in AMERICAN English. English as used in other circles can be quite different. That's what makes something jargon. It's language that seems familiar to the people in your usual circle, but might be incomprehensible, or have different meaning entirely, to someone outside of that circle. It is, therefore, the language of elitism and exclusion.

And you haven't established what makes it a fallacy - i.e. not true. I can see what makes an attack against the person wrong, but that is not the same as false. And that wrongness rather fades when the person is long dead.

Do you call it a fallacy simply because you have been taught to call it a fallacy at school?

It's not. It's a perfectly cromulent and commonly used phrase describing a well-known logical fallacy. The fact that you personally haven't heard of it doesn't change that.