Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I mean I would like to see a Nazi accelerated to nearly the speed of light.

It probably would be a good fireworks display.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I mean I would like to see a Nazi accelerated to nearly the speed of light.

It probably would be a good fireworks display.

It'd be messy.

I'm strangely comfortable with it.

Relativistic Nazi.
Made almost twice as good as whose theory it is.

Laconic refers to a particular quality the Lakonians were purported to possess, as opposed to Nazi, which refers to the group as a whole and encompasses everything about them.

"Spartan" might have been a better comparison, as it's both an adjective and a noun referring to the whole group.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Laconic refers to a particular quality the Lakonians were purported to possess, as opposed to Nazi, which refers to the group as a whole and encompasses everything about them.

"Spartan" might have been a better comparison, as it's both an adjective and a noun referring to the whole group.

I'd say that 'Nazi' only refers to their political and social beleifs, but hey, I think you've made a good job at showing that the differences between the terms are minor and do not make in an invalid comparison.

At a point in time, Laconic would've refered to everything 'Laconian' and was later on abstracted to their manner of speech.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

Actually it does because words and language change meanings over time.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would like to see a relativistic Nazi.

Nazism and Communism both subscribed to moral relativism. Just not the tolerant kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Both describe an attitude that is abstracted from how we represent a group of people. Both of those groups are famous for killing a crapton of people. People sensitivities hit the wall upon hearing Nazis because 'it trivialize the horror they committed', but when you use 'laconic', people appreciate the extent of your vocabulary without caring about the horrors committed in Laconia.

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

I hope your aware of how funny that statement is.

No, please explicitate the nature of your hilarity.

I don't know if I can. It's like your saying the only difference is time, but in time that won't mean anything. Well ya because the difference is time and in time the time will be the same. It's like your saying the difference is stripes, but after I paint it it won't matter. Then all of that is in response to someone who didn't like stripes.

... It's funny over here, that's I can be sure of.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

Actually it does because words and language change meanings over time.

That's the whole point of what I'm saying ; the use of the term 'Nazi' has changed... (or, more accurately, both use are acceptable)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:

I don't know if I can. It's like your saying the only difference is time, but in time that won't mean anything. Well ya because the difference is time and in time the time will be the same. It's like your saying the difference is stripes, but after I paint it it won't matter. Then all of that is in response to someone who didn't like stripes.

... It's funny over here, that's I can be sure of.

Well, the time thing refered to the horrors committed...

I do agree with you on that; although one should be careful about the context in which you use the term. As you said.

The meaning of a word can change depending on the context in which it is used.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Mannahnin, it was an exaggeration but in all seriousness I'm not familiar with the word and I would imagine a lot of English speaking people aren't either was the point I was trying to make.

The internet was invented to allow people who are not familiar with words to look them up quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laconic

Thanks kilkrazy, had never heard of that word before this thread,

In addition to nazis how about rape being downplayed/de-valued though "Fraping" on facebook??

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

Actually it does because words and language change meanings over time.

That's the whole point of what I'm saying ; the use of the term 'Nazi' has changed... (or, more accurately, both use are acceptable)

Alright I suppose you're right, but still calling people Nazis (unless they actually are Nazis) just because you disagree with them is a bad argument and an oversimplification (I've already mentioned that it trivializes WWII as well). Although Feminazis and Grammar-Nazis work because these

groups are strict and militant about there values (like Nazis) but no one actually thinks they're Nazis or are morally equal with Nazis, whereas with Godwin's Law some people actually feel that republicans or democrats are on par with Nazism in terms of moral standing for example (which is

obviously untrue).

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

In addition to nazis how about rape being downplayed/de-valued though "Fraping" on facebook??

It's on Facebook, therefore it's silly.

I was Fraping before Fraping was cool.
Lock your fething workstation.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Alright I suppose you're right, but still calling people Nazis (unless they actually are Nazis) just because you disagree with them is a bad argument and an oversimplification (I've already mentioned that it trivializes WWII as well).

Ad hominem are always bad. Calling a feminist making absolutely ridiculous claims (they are not a myth, let me assure you of that, my Dept offers a Master in Feminists Studies) a fem-nazi isn't meant to deride them by actually comparing them to Nazis. It's just a tool of language to express your disagreement.

some people actually feel that republicans or democrats are on par with Nazism in terms of moral standing for example (which is obviously untrue).

That's a case of ad hominem. I've said it many times, learning your sophisms is the surest way to never enjoy another political debate ever again. You realize even your side is full of cretin.

Yeah I agree Kovnik, but honestly who knew we could actually have a somewhat sensible debate on words and context out of a thread where a poster was advocating the slaughter of people he/she disagreed with.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah I agree Kovnik, but honestly who knew we could actually have a somewhat sensible debate on words and context out of a thread where a poster was advocating the slaughter of people he/she disagreed with.

Someone was advocating for violence?

Someone who isn't a teen, or a Nazi hunter wannabe?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's a case of ad hominem.

No it isn't. An ad hominem is ONLY an argument of the form "you're an X therefore Y", where X is something unrelated to the discussion. So, for example:

"You're a *******" is just an insult, not an ad hominem, since no argument is being made.

"This is why you're wrong. And PS: you're a ************" is just an insult, not an ad hominem, since the personal attack has nothing to do with the substance of the argument.

"Stop being a nazi about X" is also just an insult. It's an exaggerated one (unless X is something really horrible), but that doesn't change the substance of "you are behaving badly about this".

"Policy X is just like the nazis" is probably a bad argument (since most things aren't really that evil), but not really an ad hominem since it's logically correct to compare the policies of two different groups even though

"You're a nazi, therefore you have no credibility about X ethical subject" is probably not an ad hominem, since most people would agree that being a nazi implies seriously flawed ability to make moral judgements.

"You're a nazi, therefore you're wrong that 1+1=2" is an ad hominem, since whether or not the person is a nazi has nothing to do with whether they're right about math.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ad hominem are always bad.

Not always, just most of the time. If a thief is defending thieves, then it makes sense to point out that he is a thief and that he has an interest in defending thieves which extends beyond argumentation.

 dogma wrote:
Not always, just most of the time. If a thief is defending thieves, then it makes sense to point out that he is a thief and that he has an interest in defending thieves which extends beyond argumentation.

Of course that isn't an ad hominem at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's a case of ad hominem.

No it isn't. An ad hominem is ONLY an argument of the form "you're an X therefore Y", where X is something unrelated to the discussion. So, for example:

"You're a *******" is just an insult, not an ad hominem, since no argument is being made.

"This is why you're wrong. And PS: you're a ************" is just an insult, not an ad hominem, since the personal attack has nothing to do with the substance of the argument.

"Stop being a nazi about X" is also just an insult. It's an exaggerated one (unless X is something really horrible), but that doesn't change the substance of "you are behaving badly about this".

"Policy X is just like the nazis" is probably a bad argument (since most things aren't really that evil), but not really an ad hominem since it's logically correct to compare the policies of two different groups even though

"You're a nazi, therefore you have no credibility about X ethical subject" is probably not an ad hominem, since most people would agree that being a nazi implies seriously flawed ability to make moral judgements.

"You're a nazi, therefore you're wrong that 1+1=2" is an ad hominem, since whether or not the person is a nazi has nothing to do with whether they're right about math.

Pragmatically, an insult is often an ad hominem. A conversation is not limited to the inferences that can be made directly from the spoken language. If you insult someone in a political arena, safe to say that others can deduce your disagreement with them from the conversation's history.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Pragmatically, an insult is often an ad hominem. A conversation is not limited to the inferences that can be made directly from the spoken language. If you insult someone in a political arena, safe to say that others can deduce your disagreement with them from the conversation's history.

Expressing disagreement is not the same thing as an argument (in the logical sense). "I hate you, you're wrong" is just an insult. It might have a desired effect of hurting your target's reputation, but it isn't the kind of argument where fallacies are relevant at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's a case of ad hominem.

No it isn't. An ad hominem is ONLY an argument of the form "you're an X therefore Y", where X is something unrelated to the discussion. So, for example.

And that's wrong, the mark of an ad hominem is to oppose the speaker with his own words. It doesn't have a necessary structure.

So it'd be an ad personam, in that case.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And that's wrong, the mark of an ad hominem is to oppose the speaker with his own words. It doesn't have a necessary structure.

I'm not talking about the exact words, I mean the logical structure of the argument. It's only an ad hominem if you say that something is true BECAUSE a person is X. Simply saying a person is X is just verbal abuse.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Pragmatically, an insult is often an ad hominem. A conversation is not limited to the inferences that can be made directly from the spoken language. If you insult someone in a political arena, safe to say that others can deduce your disagreement with them from the conversation's history.

Expressing disagreement is not the same thing as an argument (in the logical sense). "I hate you, you're wrong" is just an insult. It might have a desired effect of hurting your target's reputation, but it isn't the kind of argument where fallacies are relevant at all.

Not necessarily, imagine the conversation :

a- I'm for Gay Marriage
b- I'm against Gay Marriage
a- You are a Nazi.

Pragmatically, if you realize that 'Nazi' is an insult, you realize that A disagrees with B. If you know the signification of 'Nazi', you might deduce that A thinks that B is violently intolerent. A person aware of all that and following the conversation can deduce that A is making the argument that ''B is a Nazi because he is violently intolerant to Gay marriage''.

Which would make it an ad personam.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Pragmatically, an insult is often an ad hominem. A conversation is not limited to the inferences that can be made directly from the spoken language. If you insult someone in a political arena, safe to say that others can deduce your disagreement with them from the conversation's history.

Expressing disagreement is not the same thing as an argument (in the logical sense). "I hate you, you're wrong" is just an insult. It might have a desired effect of hurting your target's reputation, but it isn't the kind of argument where fallacies are relevant at all.

Not necessarily, imagine the conversation :

a- I'm for Gay Marriage
b- I'm against Gay Marriage
a- You are a Nazi.

Pragmatically, if you realize that 'Nazi' is an insult, you realize that A disagrees with B. If you know the signification of 'Nazi', you might deduce that A thinks that B is violently intolerent. A person aware of all that and following the conversation can deduce that A is making the argument that ''B is a Nazi because he is violently intolerant to Gay marriage''.

Which would make it an ad personam.

Isn't ad personam the same as ad hominem? Because ad hominen is supposed to be an attack on a person's character that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Isn't ad personam the same as ad hominem? Because ad hominen is supposed to be an attack on a person's character that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

I almost always hear it used as the same, but the Larousse dictionnary gives a specific definition for ad hominem, which is basically expliciting a contradiction in your opponent's arguments.

Ad personam is defined as an attack on the subject holding the conversation.

I know a crapload of teachers using the terms incorrectly.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Isn't ad personam the same as ad hominem? Because ad hominen is supposed to be an attack on a person's character that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

which is basically expliciting a contradiction in your opponent's arguments.

To me that definition seems so vague that it could fall under other types of fallacies.

 dogma wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ad hominem are always bad.

Not always, just most of the time. If a thief is defending thieves, then it makes sense to point out that he is a thief and that he has an interest in defending thieves which extends beyond argumentation.

Just gonna say, it has been a long time since I've seen you post something, and I'm quite happy you're still with us!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Isn't ad personam the same as ad hominem? Because ad hominen is supposed to be an attack on a person's character that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

which is basically expliciting a contradiction in your opponent's arguments.

To me that definition seems so vague that it could fall under other types of fallacies.

Something could be an ad hominem and an ad verecundium (authority), yes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Not always, just most of the time. If a thief is defending thieves, then it makes sense to point out that he is a thief and that he has an interest in defending thieves which extends beyond argumentation.

Of course that isn't an ad hominem at all.

Yes it is.

In a general sense ad hominem occurs whenever one attacks the character of an interlocutor. This is usually fallacious, but not always. To carry on my example, it would not be fallacious to remark on the fact that a person defending thieves happened to be a thief. However, it would be fallacious to make note of the fact that he also happened to be a eunuch.

You are correct that relevance to the topic is important to the validity of an ad hominem attack, but whether or not something is ad hominem is not so impacted.

This is a decent overview.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Just gonna say, it has been a long time since I've seen you post something, and I'm quite happy you're still with us!

Glad to be here.