7 ms·

por que no los dos? It sounds like we agree, ignoring qualifiers like subconclusion: the lanuage was directed against a person rather than the position they ar

• TulliusCicero 6y ago
  No it's not. An ad hominem is saying, "your character sucks, therefore your argument must be wrong", or focusing your attack mostly on their character rather than any line of reasoning. Throwing in an insult here and there may be poor form, but that does not an ad hominem make. Especially when the character attack is a result of the line if reasoning you're making. If your whole argument is, "between X and Y and Z, we can see that Politician is corrupt", calling them corrupt is an insult but not an ad hominem.
  • anoncareer0212 6y ago
    Its not :/ I'm curious what would happen if you looked up the definition of ad hominem and showed me how the excerpt doesn't match the definition
    • TulliusCicero 6y ago
      That's not how it works. It's on the party making the assertion to have proof. So far, the "yes that's an ad hominem" side seems disinclined to provide any evidence or engage directly. Anyway, from Wikipedia's explanation: > Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". Note that "rather" in the explanation. It's a matter of substituting character attack for reasoning critique. "Based on their shitty reasoning, I conclude that they're real dumb" is not an ad hominem in the least, it does not fit the definition, the causation has to go the other way.
      • anoncareer0212 6y ago
        Please try to be civil, things like "That's not how this works, you give the definition and example" and "So far, the "yes that's an ad hominem" side seems disinclined to provide any evidence or engage directly." are factually untrue and ad hominem, we're downthread from me doing exactly that. I'll hang up and listen.
        • TulliusCicero 6y ago
          Okay, I'll try to refrain from that where it's unwarranted. That's a fair critique. Though you didn't address my argument here. You seem to be thinking that that definition means that a character attack at literally any point in an essay or report constitutes an ad hominem. It's not: the 'rather' implies a substitution, where the character attack essentially is the reasoning used. If I do an investigative report on a campaigning politician, detailing that he once beat his wife, neglected his kids, cheated on his taxes, etc. and then concluded that "his morals appear to be rather severely in question", that's a character attack, but it's not an ad hominem.
          • wizzwizz4 6y ago
            However, concluding that his policies are bad as a result of that would be.