/lit/ - Literature

>>13344334

I'm not reading Ms. Shekelstein's thesis on intersectional black-trans empowerment. It would serve as good material to look directly upon social degeneration, but not as good material to understand it in all its manifestation.

>>13344339

I'm not responding to a comment this dumb. You only get a wojak. Think about what you've said and think about what I've said and realise there's no relation.

https://analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/estimating-ethnic-genetic-interests-is-it-adaptive-to-resist-replacement-migration.pdf

Having just read Schopenhauer's Dialectica Eristica, I seem to be confused as to the meanings and the differences between Ad Hominem and Ad Personem.
Here are the definitions by Schopenhauer:

>Ad Hominem: " Another trick is to use arguments ad hominem, or ex concessis. When your opponent makes a proposition, you must try to see whether it is not in some way — if needs be, only apparently — inconsistent with some other proposition which he has made or admitted, or with the principles of a school or sect which he has commended and approved, or with the actions of those who support the sect, or else of those who give it only an apparent and spurious support; or with his own actions or want of action."

>Ad Personam: " A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it."

To me, Schopenhauer seems to attribute to Ad Personam the definition most people give to Ad Hominem, and defines Ad Hominem as nitpicking contradictions and inconsistencies in the opponents statements.

What do you make of this? Did I get something wrong? Does every person in the world misuse ad hominem? Any help's appreciated.

>>11645388
>looserz hurr XDD
Thanks for the original criticism, buddy

>"Religion? HAH! How can anyone hold a system that requires faith as truth?"
>founds entire principle on uprovable axioms

>>10788340
>Nah, only that logic by itself is worse than useless

>>10292892
nuh uh, litt dell mi hee id spood !
am veri smert

>>10237110
mi r vern smeart