5 ms·

So if someone has different opinions than you, they're evil? That's pretty much textbook ad hominen. Attack ideas, not people.

by lhorie 6y ago

croes 6y ago
It's not as hominem. He is judged by his actions. He think IP is good for the world and urged Oxford to sell their research instead of gift it to all. In the end some will make huge profit and the others will pay because corona will be a yearly vaccination just like the flu.
Retric 6y ago
Ad hominem works in the other direction where you judge ideas by the people that support them not people by the ideas they support. What’s confusing is your attacking the person, but it’s the use of unrelated topics that’s the problem. If you believe say slavery is evil, then calling slave holders evil because they own slaves isn’t an ad hominem. You can believe the founding fathers where evil and the constitution was great, except that bit about 2/3 people. It’s not an ad hominem because you’re judging ideas separately.
- lhorie 6y ago
  > judge ideas by the people that support them No, that's a different type of fallacy called appeal to authority[0]. Mind you, this one is more subtle, in the sense that it may not be a fallacy if there is an overarching consensus. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  - Retric 6y ago
    Appeal to authority is related but different, it’s using a positive association in support. Ad hominem is trying to create a negative association to discredit. They both exploit a similar cognitive bias, but logical fallacies are about the form an argument takes not why they might be effective. Consider an impeachment trial isn’t an ad hominem because it’s not part of an argument. Saying Bob took bribes therefore this bill is suspect is an ad hominem, but saying Bob took bribes therefore we need to get him out of office is fine.
scotty79 6y ago
If I was discussing the idea of "wonderfull IP protections" and I claimed that it's evil, because Bill, an evil person, holds it. Then it would be at hominem. It's not because I'm just judging Bill on the basis of the actions he (reportedly) performed and (imo evil) ideas (he supposedly holds). By your definiton of 'ad hominem' many court judgements are just 'ad hominem'.

So if someone has different opinions than you, they're evil? That's pretty much textbook ad hominen. Attack ideas, not people.

by lhorie 6y ago

So if someone has different opinions than you, they're evil? That's pretty much textbook ad hominen. Attack ideas, not people.

croes 6y ago

It's not as hominem. He is judged by his actions. He think IP is good for the world and urged Oxford to sell their research instead of gift it to all. In the end some will make huge profit and the others will pay because corona will be a yearly vaccination just like the flu.

Retric 6y ago

Ad hominem works in the other direction where you judge ideas by the people that support them not people by the ideas they support. What’s confusing is your attacking the person, but it’s the use of unrelated topics that’s the problem. If you believe say slavery is evil, then calling slave holders evil because they own slaves isn’t an ad hominem. You can believe the founding fathers where evil and the constitution was great, except that bit about 2/3 people. It’s not an ad hominem because you’re judging ideas separately.

lhorie 6y ago
> judge ideas by the people that support them No, that's a different type of fallacy called appeal to authority[0]. Mind you, this one is more subtle, in the sense that it may not be a fallacy if there is an overarching consensus. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- Retric 6y ago
  Appeal to authority is related but different, it’s using a positive association in support. Ad hominem is trying to create a negative association to discredit. They both exploit a similar cognitive bias, but logical fallacies are about the form an argument takes not why they might be effective. Consider an impeachment trial isn’t an ad hominem because it’s not part of an argument. Saying Bob took bribes therefore this bill is suspect is an ad hominem, but saying Bob took bribes therefore we need to get him out of office is fine.

scotty79 6y ago

If I was discussing the idea of "wonderfull IP protections" and I claimed that it's evil, because Bill, an evil person, holds it. Then it would be at hominem. It's not because I'm just judging Bill on the basis of the actions he (reportedly) performed and (imo evil) ideas (he supposedly holds). By your definiton of 'ad hominem' many court judgements are just 'ad hominem'.