AND there it is

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 128
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Please accept my apology and continue.
We already know what a "regulation free" zone looks like.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City, on March 25, 1911, was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city, and one of the deadliest in U.S. history.[1] The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers – 123 women and girls and 23 men[2] – who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling/jumping to their deaths. Most of the victims were recent Italian and Jewish immigrant women and girls aged 14 to 23;[3][4] of the victims whose ages are known, the oldest victim was 43-year-old Providenza Panno, and the youngest were 14-year-olds Kate Leone and Rosaria "Sara" Maltese.[5]
The factory was located on the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of the Asch Building, at 23–29 Washington Place, near Washington Square Park. The 1901 building still stands today and is now known as the Brown Building. It is part of and owned by New York University.[6]

Because the doors to the stairwells and exits were locked[1][7] (a then-common practice to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks and to reduce theft),[8] many of the workers could not escape from the burning building and jumped from the high windows. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU), which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers. [LINK]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
Any statement and or question that is directed at the SPEAKER (personally) and not the ARGUMENT is an ad hominem attack.
No it isn't.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
It should be set just high enough to disenfranchise the low skilled labor competing for union jobs so that Labor Unions can set artificial monopoly prices on labor, which will hasten the robot takeover of society while reducing job creation and productivity, all in one fell swoop. 

Business as usual in Crony America.
You forgot to mention, "forcing corporations to move operations off-shore in order to exploit unregulated labor markets".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Though that was the aim of the Republican mob
Don't you mean "Republican protesters"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope..... Americans seemingly can never get enough of Oil and Israel.....Democrat or republican doesn't make any difference.....Why is that, Doc?
Well stated.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Interesting caption under the photo of the article in the OP:  "Children gesture as US troops patrol in their military vehicles on the roads of the Syrian town of al-Jawadiyah and meet the inhabitants, in the northeastern Hasakeh providence, near the border with Turkey, on December 17, 2020."  

We have actually been sending troops to Syria since September. So please explain how this is all thanks to Joe Biden lol  🤪🤪🤪🤪


drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I have before, and you don’t learn.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
Any statement and or question that is directed at the SPEAKER (personally) and not the ARGUMENT [WITH THE AIM TO DISQUALIFY THE SPEAKER] is an ad hominem attack.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
I have before, and you don’t learn.
Citation please.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If you hear Freidman's take on bad actors in a free market, you will see how these cases are severe outliers and not the norm. 

You also understand that Federal "one size fits all" regulations generally cause much more harm than good in the final analysis. Pay special attention to the problems with the FDA and how Doctors are not allowed to have the same life-saving drugs that other countries have access to. Milton's point is yes, a few lives were saved because a few outlier drugs were kept off the shelves, but the cost of those sweeping overbroad regulations also kept a much larger amount of GOOD drugs off the shelf. Local regulations and local tort law are often times MUCH better tools to deal with fringe outliers and bad actors than sweeping Federal legislation.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,583
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Danielle
that goes against everything trump stood for though
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL

I know this dialogue and exchange is hard to follow, but try to understand the sweeping opportunity costs when the government denies the free consent of 2 parties to engage in a private contract of trade that harms nobody outside of those 2 parties.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
I'm genuinely impressed.

An ad hominem isn't merely a personal attack.
Yes it is.  EVERY SINGLE PERSONAL INSULT IS AN IMPLICIT ATTACK ON THAT PERSON'S GENERAL CREDIBILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS, RELIABILITY, AND OR SANITY.

Not every ad hominem is an OBVIOUS insult, HOWevER, every personal insult is an ad hominem attack.

It is a specific kind of personal attack used to undermine a person's arguments. That is, a person's arguments are wrong because of some undesirable quality in the person.
If I called you a "stinky, uneducated toad", and I didn't happen to include the critically explicit phrasing, "and therefore your argument is wrong specifically because you happen to be a stinky, uneducated toad", that missing phrase doesn't make the PERSONAL COMMENT magically VALID.

Without the attempt at refutation of an argument, it doesn't amount to an ad hominem,
The INSULT ITSELF is an attempt to circumvent any stated argument (by disqualifying the speaker), thereby implicitly circumventing any need to formally "refute" the actual argument.

nor would every kind of ad hominem involve a personal attack according to the CoC of this site.
I agree.  ANY RUSH TO DISQUALIFY AN INTERLOCUTOR BASED ON ANY PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OR CHARACTERIZATIONS (both "positive" and "negative") qualify as an ad hominem attack.

For example, if I catch you in a lie, and then try to argue that because you've lied once, no one else should trust any future argument, that would be an ad hominem attack, but not a personal attack according to the CoC.
Not every ad hominem is an OBVIOUS insult, HOWevER, every personal insult is an ad hominem attack.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
My ad hom was more directed at your expertise rather than your character. Regardless, it was an indirect appeal to authority or lack thereof rather than addressing the flaws in your assessment.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
My ad hom was more directed at your expertise rather than your character. Regardless, it was an indirect appeal to authority or lack thereof rather than addressing the flaws in your assessment.
Bookmark this page so you can reference this conversation the next time you hear someone accusing another member of being a "racist" (which is obviously an ad hominem attack).
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@3RU7AL
HOWevER, every personal insult is an ad hominem attack.
No it isn't.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
HOWevER, every personal insult is an ad hominem attack.
No it isn't.
Please provide an example of a personal insult that is NOT an ad hominem attack.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
When the argument is about a person.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,366
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Protesting mob, or mob of protesters?......Take your pick.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@3RU7AL
An ad hominem is when you are claiming a person's argument is wrong or invalid because of some irrelevant personal attribute.

Without the underlined part, it is not an ad hominem attack, it just an insult.

"You're argument is wrong because you're stupid." Is an ad hominem attack.

"You're stupid." Isn't an ad hominem attack.

Heck:

"You're argument is wrong and you're stupid." Isn't an ad hominem attack either.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@drafterman
"You're argument is wrong because you're stupid." Is an ad hominem attack.

"You're stupid." Isn't an ad hominem attack.

Heck:

"You're argument is wrong and you're stupid." Isn't an ad hominem attack either

You're misuse is an ad hominem attack on Gramma
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
When the argument is about a person.
Even in a TRIAL, OPINIONS are ad hominem attacks.  FACTUAL STATEMENTS specifically related to the case itself are NOT ad hominem attacks.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
@Barney
@Ramshutu
So, if someone said, "you're a gorgeous movie-star, therefore your political arguments and or views are invalid" this statement would NOT qualify as either a personal-attack or as an ad hominem in-your-opinion?
From my position as a voting mod my opinion is that this would qualify as a personal attack and an as hominem - as it is specifically implying that there is a material problem with the person (dumb due to being a movie star)

While I said the word explicit about 8 times in two sentences; your example illustrates I should probably have included strong inferred negative statements too as long as they’re material. [LINK]

@Ragnar,

Can I get a second opinion on this?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot

I know this dialogue and exchange is hard to follow, but try to understand the sweeping opportunity costs when the government denies the free consent of 2 parties to engage in a private contract of trade that harms nobody outside of those 2 parties.
Ok, most FEDERAL REGULATIONS are over "the line".

The Constitution only allows "inter-state" (FEDERAL) regulation.

STATE REGULATIONS are perfectly legitimate.

HOweVER, both in theory and in practice they favor BIG FISH.

Strangely, ZERO REGULATION also favors BIG FISH.

So, in reality, it's a WIN-WIN for the BIG FISH.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@3RU7AL
From my position as a voting mod my opinion is that this would qualify as a personal attack and an as hominem
This isn't a matter of opinion. This is about what the definition of a term is. And you are wrong about the definition of a term.

- as it is specifically implying that there is a material problem with the person (dumb due to being a movie star)
Implying there is a material problem with the person isn't an ad hominem unless you are also saying that the material problem with the person suggests a material problem with the argument. You continually, consistently, ignore that second part. So I will repeat it again:

An ad hominem, definitionally, necessarily, requires a link to the argument the person is making. Without that link, there is no ad hominem. Bare insults are not ad hominem. They are bare insults.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot

I know this dialogue and exchange is hard to follow, but try to understand the sweeping opportunity costs when the government denies the free consent of 2 parties to engage in a private contract of trade that harms nobody outside of those 2 parties.
I found it interesting that Milton Friedman was in FAVOR of environmental regulations.

Also, Milton Friedman's argument against mandatory AIR BAGS seemed to be missing the point about the societal cost of "individual risk".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
This is about what the definition of a term is.
Please link to your personally preferred "authoritative definition".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
An ad hominem, definitionally, necessarily, requires a link to the argument the person is making.
THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION ITSELF IS AN UNAMBIGUOUS IMPLICIT LINK.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
An ad hominem argument is a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself. Essentially, this means that ad hominem arguments are used to attack opposing views indirectly, by attacking the individuals or groups that support these views.

Ad hominem arguments can take many forms, from basic name-calling to more complex rhetoric. For example, an ad hominem argument can involve simply insulting a person instead of properly replying to a point that they raised, or it can involve questioning their motives in response to their criticism of the current state of things.

Ad hominem arguments are common in both formal and informal discussions on various topics, so it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about ad hominem arguments, see what types of them exist, and understand what you can do to respond to them properly. [LINK]