the burden of proof would require you to substantiate your position with legitimate criticism, not with with things like why mess it up, too much time on his hands etc
Absolutely not, the burden of proof is not on me. The status quo is always the default. The burden of proof falls to the fellow who's trying to introduce something new and different. I have only to remain unimpressed to prevail.
On one hand you deny his assertion, but at the same time appear to be making his point.
Only if you shift into his paradigm to make your assessment. In the standard view of things, that wasn't an ad hominem. It was my attempt to conjure up some utility in his proposed redefinition. I notice you're not offering any utility, any benefit in switching to his way. "This just sounds like common sense" is hardly a compelling incentive. Maybe it resonates with you, but that's no substitute for a benefit analysis.
Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider.
I'm at a loss to see how his version works better than the standard one. In the standard one, if it's relevant, it's a proper argument; if it's not, it's an ad hominum, which is a fallacy. That's really, really simple. Again, the onus is on him to show how his way is preferable to the status quo. I see no sign of that. |
