An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of the person making the claim, his circumstances, or his actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X. 2. Person B makes an attack on person A. 3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Examples of Ad Hominems(AH) used in Egyptology
Herodotus: The Ancient Egyptians were black skinned and wooly haired AH: Herodotus was a liar
<><><>
Diop's many theses on the origins of Ancient Egyptians AH: Diop has been discredited (by whom specifically is never specified)
...and on, and on, and on...
BUT what these racialist "Egyptologists" will NEVER discuss is how the Ancient Egyptians described themselves; their modus operandi is fraud, illusion, sleight of hand...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Your example does not qualify as an Ad Hominem. The nature of the particular argument requires that you attack the opponent, not his/her source. Herodotus is a source of information, not an opponent (He is no longer alive). Calling into question the honesty of information is fair game.
-------------------- Will destroy all Black Lies Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed Wally's example was a little cockeyed but I wasn't going to say anything, he needs attention and I had given him some before
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:^Your example does not qualify as an Ad Hominem. The nature of the particular argument requires that you attack the opponent, not his/her source. Herodotus is a source of information, not an opponent (He is no longer alive). Calling into question the honesty of information is fair game.
.
But Herodotus has often been called "the father of lies". This is a clear ad hominem. There are many observations he made that were indeed true--as when he recounted his travels in Egypt. Though I am not clear as to why he was called "the father of lies" and by whom.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^If Herodotus is proven to have embellished many of his historical accounts then he can be rightly accused of being a liar (in context of historical accuracy) --He is an unreliable historical source, in totality. This fact should call into question EVERY single Herodotus claim. This is not an ad hominem; as an ad hominem is an attack on some irrelevant fact to the argument, about that person. The deliberate act of deception in an historical account has everything to do w/the argument in question.
When they say Herodotus is "the father of lies," it is because there is evidence that he had purposed to misrepresent some of the facts he recorded. Therefore, it is fair game to attack the truthfulness of his accounts or him as a reliable source.
quote:But Herodotus has often been called "the father of lies". This is a clear ad hominem. There are many observations he made that were indeed true--as when he recounted his travels in Egypt. Though I am not clear as to why he was called "the father of lies" and by whom
posted
^ Herodotus' observations re the Egyptians and blackness [which seems to be the only thing re Herodotus you Euronuts are peeved about] has been corroborated by other ancient observes. You are a focking idiot.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:When they say Herodotus is "the father of lies," it is because there is evidence that he had purposed to misrepresent some of the facts he recorded. Therefore, it is fair game to attack the truthfulness of his accounts or him as a reliable source.
But there is no historian of note whose accounts of events have not been challenged and called "distortions", "omissions". or outright "fabrications". Think of, say, Israeli and Palestininan historians and the events that led to to the founding of Israel. Or white American and South African historians on U.S. slavery and Apartheid in SA.
So to call Herodotus "the father of lies" is indeed puzzling.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Well Lamin, the epithet has nothing to do with an answer to Afrocentrism, if that is what you are implying. He received the reputation during the renaissance; this is well before Afrocentrism - linkPosts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
why would he he lie about the egyptians being black, what would be his motive?
Posts: 142 | From: england sw | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gigantic Did you even bother to read your source? it was only from the renaissance that Francesco Petrarca referred to Cicero's charge that Herodotus fabricated the oracle to Croesus and declined to believe it. Now was Cicero(a Roman) a contemporary of Herodotus? Now modern and near modern Eurocentrics used Cicerco's doubts to try and diminished Herodotus exactly because of his reports on his Colchian travels and reports of blacks who maybe related to the Kemities living there.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is it with my statement that you take issue with?
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Gigantic Did you even bother to read your source? it was only from the renaissance that Francesco Petrarca referred to Cicero's charge that Herodotus fabricated the oracle to Croesus and declined to believe it. Now was Cicero(a Roman) a contemporary of Herodotus? Now modern and near modern Eurocentrics used Cicerco's doubts to try and diminished Herodotus exactly because of his reports on his Colchian travels and reports of blacks who maybe related to the Kemities living there.
posted
Gigantic If Herodotus is proven to have embellished many of his historical accounts then he can be rightly accused of being a liar (in context of historical accuracy) --He is an unreliable historical source, in totality. This fact should call into question EVERY single Herodotus claim. This is not an ad hominem; as an ad hominem is an attack on some irrelevant fact to the argument, about that person. The deliberate act of deception in an historical account has everything to do w/the argument in question. When they say Herodotus is "the father of lies," it is because there is evidence that he had purposed to misrepresent some of the facts he recorded. Therefore, it is fair game to attack the truthfulness of his accounts or him as a reliable source.
That is the issue I am taking issue with. he did not purposely lie on anything he made a clear distinction between what he heard and what he observed personally and whenever he heard reports of incredible things he is careful to point it out as hearsay.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by viola75: why would he he lie about the egyptians being black, what would be his motive?
Yes gigantic ass, you bypassed this one. Are you saying Herodotus was an "Afronut" too? LOL!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the hell does that mean? You give me an English translation of the classical greek as if I am as gullible as you as to read it in the same context that the word Black is presently used? You must think I'm some looney kazooney like you Afronuts (LOL). And what about the competing translation, "Dark?" You can take that Afrocentrist nonsense and shove it up you know where.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by viola75: why would he he lie about the egyptians being black, what would be his motive?
Yes gigantic ass, you bypassed this one. Are you saying Herodotus was an "Afronut" too? LOL!
posted
Yeh cuz "dark" totally rules out black people! LMAO! What a focking idiot you are.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh contrare! "dark" prevents your porch monkey ass from backdoor hijacking the culture, as dark is relative. Moreover, it does not carry the [negro] stigma that the term Black carries.
YOU LOSE CLOWN. GAME IS OVER.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of the person making the claim, his circumstances, or his actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X. 2. Person B makes an attack on person A. 3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Examples of Ad Hominems(AH) used in Egyptology
Herodotus: The Ancient Egyptians were black skinned and wooly haired AH: Herodotus was a liar
<><><>
Diop's many theses on the origins of Ancient Egyptians AH: Diop has been discredited (by whom specifically is never specified)
...and on, and on, and on...
BUT what these racialist "Egyptologists" will NEVER discuss is how the Ancient Egyptians described themselves, because their modus operandi is fraud, illusion, sleight of hand...Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: it does not carry the [negro] stigma that the term Black carries.
Dude, take your backward ignorant ass back to the nineteenth century with your "true negro" Coonian bullsh!t..."does not carry the [negro] stigma"...WAHAHAHA
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Yeh cuz "dark" totally rules out black people! LMAO! What a focking idiot you are.
Couldn't have said it better myself One thing to keep in mind is Greeks/Cretans themselves were already pretty much at the dark extreme of the ''European'' spectrum. Not only that, they were probably a bit over it too, since they were admixed with E-M78 carrying Africans. If the ''dark'' epithet pertained to people who looked like them, they wouldn't need to look further than themselves to make comparisons with the Egyptians.
Yet they didn't. Why is that Gigantic?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Yeh cuz "dark" totally rules out black people! LMAO! What a focking idiot you are.
Couldn't have said it better myself One thing to keep in mind is Greeks/Cretans themselves were already pretty much at the dark extreme of the ''European'' spectrum. Not only that, they were probably a bit over it too, since they were admixed with E-M78 carrying Africans. If the ''dark'' epithet pertained to people who looked like them, they wouldn't need to look further than themselves to make comparisons with the Egyptians.
Yet they didn't. Why is that Gigantic?
LOL, seriously come to think of it dont the Euronuts claim the Egyptians resembled Mediteranians and Southern Europeans..lol...So now they are "Dark" ??? How deep does the rabbit hole go?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Greek word for "black" is "melas"--and the word Herodotus, Aristotle, et al. used in connection with the Egyptians and Ethiopians(the people South of Egypt and beyond) was "melanchros". This would mean "black coloured". Right? Note the English word that derives from the Greek "melas": melanin.
Note too that Herodotus, Aristotle, et al.--whenever they spoke of the Egyptians in terms of ethnicity and culture usually referenced the Ethiopians at the same time.
Now Gigantic and others of the same ilk should realise that on the accounts of the Greeks the AEs were clearly what his ideological colleagues would label by that silly Eurocentric term "sub-Saharan".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Yeh cuz "dark" totally rules out black people! LMAO! What a focking idiot you are.
Couldn't have said it better myself One thing to keep in mind is Greeks/Cretans themselves were already pretty much at the dark extreme of the ''European'' spectrum. Not only that, they were probably a bit over it too, since they were admixed with E-M78 carrying Africans. If the ''dark'' epithet pertained to people who looked like them, they wouldn't need to look further than themselves to make comparisons with the Egyptians.
Yet they didn't. Why is that Gigantic?
LOL, seriously come to think of it dont the Euronuts claim the Egyptians resembled Mediteranians and Southern Europeans..lol...So now they are "Dark" ??? How deep does the rabbit hole go?
Logic doesn't have to follow rules nor does it have to be consistant if you want something to be true and are forcing things to fit your beliefs.
Basically for them, and their disgruntled kinfolk at the other side of the centric spectrum, anything goes.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This topic originally began as Ad Hominem attacks used in Egyptology, but has since digressed into an example which I presented, therefore...
quote:The History of Herodotus, by Herodotus, Written 440 B.C.E Translated by George Rawlinson Book II
"This was what I heard from the priests at Thebes; at Dodona, however, the women who deliver the oracles relate the matter as follows: "Two black doves flew away from Egyptian Thebes, and while one directed its flight to Libya, the other came to them...The Dodonaeans called the women doves because they were foreigners, and seemed to them to make a noise like birds. After a while the dove spoke with a human voice, because the woman, whose foreign talk had previously sounded to them like the chattering of a bird, acquired the power of speaking what they could understand. For how can it be conceived possible that a dove should really speak with the voice of a man? Lastly, by calling the dove black the Dodonaeans indicated that the woman was an Egyptian. And certainly the character of the oracles at Thebes and Dodona is very similar. Besides this form of divination, the Greeks learnt also divination by means of victims from the Egyptians."
posted
Even if Herodotus did embellish some of his stories, what does this have to do with a simple and straight forward description of the physical appearance of a people?? What is so hard to believe about a people being having black skin and woolly hair, especially if they are native to Africa?!
Herodotus: "...several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and kinky hair (to tell the truth this proves nothing for other peoples have them too) and secondly, and more reliably for the reason that alone among mankind the Egyptians and the Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial..."
^ Notice that Herodotus was even honest enough too point out that such features as black skin and woolly hair are not unique to the Egyptians alone but among various peoples including some aboriginal populations in some parts of Eurasia. Yet his description is clear and of course Egypt is in Africa.
Many naysayers like to accuse Herodotus of being at best embellishing and at a worst a liar, yet this does not account for all the other Greco-Roman writers!
Aristotle: "Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two."
Lucian (quoting a conversation between two Greek men): "Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . . his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman.'
Timolaus: 'But that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood. It is the exact opposite of the custom of our ancestors who thought it seemly for old men to secure their hair with a gold brooch to keep it in place."
Apollodorus: "Aegyptos conquered the country of the blackfooted ones and called it Egypt after himself."
Aeschylus: "Danaos, fleeing with his daughters, the Danaids, and pursued by his brother Aegyptos with his sons, the Aegyptiads, who seek to wed their cousins by force, climbs a hillock, looks out to sea and describes the Aegyptiads at the oars afar off in these terms: 'I can see the crew with their black limbs and white tunics."
Strabo: "Egyptians settled in Ethiopia and in Colchoi" Elsewhere he argues that the Egyptians are even blacker than the 'Hindu (Indian) race' which he also describes as black!
Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent. . . They add that the Egyptians have received from them, as from authors and their ancestors, the greater part of their laws."
Diodorus believed this not only from the same customs and practices but also their same black appearance and features.
Diogenes Laertius: "..Apollonius of Tyre says of him (Xeno) that he was gaunt, very tall and black, hence the fact that, according to Chrysippus in the First Book of his Proverbs, certain people called him an Egyptian vine-shoot."
Ammianus Marcellinus: "the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look." (A common description of also Ethiopians)
Achilles Tatius of Alexandria compares the herdsmen of the Delta to the Ethiopians and explains that they are blackish, like half-castes. (Those native Egyptians who mixed with the Greek colonial elite).
Now. Can Gigantic-Asshole explain away all these Greco-Roman writers as liars or their accounts as "embellishments"?? I don't think so! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic