It’s not the main attack but you can have many fallacies in a single argument. Attacking the length of an argument rather than the thrust of the argument is an Ad hominem fallacy.
> Attacking the length of an argument rather than the thrust of the argument is an Ad hominem fallacy.
Its a fallacy but its not ad hominem. (Its non sequitur, but than most fallacies are specialized forms of non sequitur, so that doesn’t really narrow it down much beyond saying it is fallacious.) There's not, AFAIK, a common catchy name specifically for “argument to the peripheral stylistic features of the opponent’s argument”, though there maybe should be, because in practice its a common fallacy.
> though maybe maybe should be, because in practice its a common fallacy
That’s why it was. Ad hominem is based on what is being attacked not how.
Attacking the person not the argument is deeper than simply dismissing something because of their political party, race, or educational history. When you attack stylistic elements of an argument you’re attacking the person as someone who made an argument in that form.
> When you attack stylistic elements of an argument you’re attacking the person as someone who made an argument in that form
No, you aren’t.
“This argument is false because ofn the way it is presented” is fallacious, but it does not rely on the reader rearranging it into “This argument is wrong because anyone who would present an argument this way is a bad person whose arguments should be dismissed”.
Its definitely a non sequitur, but calling it ad hominem is interpolating things that aren't there.
Not that kind of person or attack. What in your mind separates mocking someone’s speech impediment with mocking a website’s font?
A website isn’t literally a person, but what’s being attacked is the thing making the argument. It kind of break down because this isn’t directly equivalent to two people debating before the Roman senate, but western philosophy really didn’t care much about such superficial differences.
I can’t think of the phrase but there is the platonic ideal of an argument and individual who voiced it. Something about after an argument has been spoken it, as in the argument, needs to be addressed directly not the person who said it.
PS: Similar idea in a different context don’t judge a book by its cover. Not directly relevant, but I find it fascinating how often the idea of superficial as unimportant is used while people focus on it so much. Sort of a humanity has changed less than you might think in the last several thousand years kind of thing.
Ad hominem includes many types attacks on a person that aren’t about the person but how they presented the argument. Ie mocking how slow someone spoke, or in this case how many words they used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
This is the crux of it, and lines up with what I was saying:
> Nowadays, except within specialized philosophical usages, the usage of the term ad hominem signifies a straight attack at the character and ethos of a person, in an attempt to refute their argument.
That doesn’t make the correct usage in this context wrong, or more importantly prevent what you said from both being a logical fallacy and simply rude.
I personally would have apologized a while ago, but you do you.
> That doesn’t make the correct usage in this context wrong
Well, it does if I'm being a bit snarky, and not using that snark as a way of dismissing a claim. I'm saying there is no justification for the claim, and that it's taken far more words to claim the thing than it would be to supply a simple disproving example.
> or more importantly prevent what you said from both being a logical fallacy
No, something being not ad hominem doesn't prevent it from being a logical fallacy, but that's not how reason works. You disprove. You don't say, "Well this criticism failed but that doesn't prove it's valid!"
> I personally would have apologized a while ago, but you do you.
But... this is also rude. More so than a little bit of snark.
No, being snarky in no way changes what’s going on.
> a simple disproving example
Which I provided an hour ago and you haven’t responded, thus disproving your argument here with an example.
> is also rude.
If you acknowledge you’ve been rude then apology is appropriate. Simply ignoring rudeness is poor manors as otherwise people can’t improve. Instead proper manors is to bring up the mistake and offer a minor correction. In person subtle body language is useful, but in text the only option is to be more explicit though still indirect. Thus what I said was quite literally the opposite of being rude.
I'm not ignoring what you said; I just didn't see it. This is an internet forum, not a live conversation. If you assume that proves something...I don't know. Not much point interacting with someone whose imagination exceeds their grasp on reality.
I thoroughly disliked every moment spent interacting with you. You’ve admitted above that you were being snarky. That’s what you put into the world. I want you to understand that when you use your time to be snarky to people it is hurtful and wrong. Please do better.
You saying sarcastically how I could be so silly as to claim only two options, rather than simply saying "hang on, what about option X" and us having a conversation is where this went wrong. A tiny bit of snark is much less rude than that, and particularly when it's in response to the initial unpleasant sarcasm.
It’s also snarky.