5 ms·
What constitutes a true ad hominem argument?
- cliffy 18y agoYou sir, are an idiot.
- JoelSutherland 18y agoIt's also important to remember that the reverse is true: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority...
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- cousin_it 18y agoHe also has a great article on the software developer condition: http://plover.net/~bonds/software.html http://plover.net/~bonds/software.html
- bena 18y agoAccording to this guy, the only ad hominem argument is invoking ad hominem. Of course, he is using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to prove his point saying that the other arguments aren't "true" ad hominem.
- aston 18y agoHe only points out that many arguments that point out ad hominem arguments are themselves ad hominem. He doesn't restrict ad hominem to that one case, though. And if you didn't suck at reading comprehension, I wouldn't need to point that out...
- stcredzero 18y agoHow about, "Apparently, there was a failure in reading comprehension that preceded your reasoning." Is that quip about "Reading Comprehension" directed at me?
- bena 18y agoMy reading comprehension is fine, it's just that about the only arguments he finds to be ad hominem are those claiming ad hominem. Although the article could have been much shorter if he simply defined ad hominem as "You're an asshole and therefore wrong."
- aston 18y agoI was just kidding about the reading comprehension. Mostly. Here's an example he gave of an ad hominem attack that doesn't involve calling the other person's attack ad hominem: A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true." and here's another (from the Nick Naylor school of rhetoric): A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."
- bena 18y agoYeah, I get it. It's an article about ad hominem, so the joking insults come out. The first may not actually be ad hominem. If A actually doesn't have a good grasp of logic, then there is no attack just a statement of fact. And he actually says the opposite earlier, but with the statements reversed (This can't be true, you don't have a good grasp of logic.). And the second is argument from authority, not ad hominem. Lastly, ad hominem doesn't always address the argument. In fact ad hominem is an abandonment of argument in favor of abuse. You start appealing to people's emotion by painting a negative image of the person.
- randomwalker 18y agoThis was the best example by far IMO: A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument." B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of an *ad homonym* argument.)
- Eliezer 18y agoBeautiful, thorough, and precise.
- sh1mmer 18y agoThis argument would be interesting if the author wasn't an idiot and had a grasp of what sarcasm is. A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic." B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish. What a genius!
- sh1mmer 18y agoApparently the rater who down-modded me gets sarcasm and faux-ad hominem.
- eatenbyagrue 18y agoOh man I wish comments were enabled on his post...
- zmimon 18y agoNice to see a good explanation (if a little painstaking) of this. "Ad hominem" is fast becoming the new Godwin ... Having said that, I hope that people don't think this gives everyone license to abuse each other. Regardless of whether it's part of your argument, insulting or ridiculing someone rarely helps progress an argument forward.
- sofal 18y agoAnother term that is overused is the "straw man argument" comeback. It's not Latin, but people still viciously cling to it. Wherever there is a misunderstanding between two different sides, the defensive cry "straw man!" is heard either to compensate for a lack of ability (or motivation) to explain a point of view or to willfully ignore obvious implications of an argument. If you look hard enough, you can find a straw man in almost every argument. Although it's important to find these misinterpretations and correct them, it usually does no good to yell "straw man!" at the other guy as part of your rebuttal. There are some cases where a straw man argument is purposely used, usually to attack someone else's beliefs or philosophy, and therefore I think it's appropriate to bring up that term (if you're up to feeding trolls). Next time you feel like reaching for your "straw man" defense, try to understand how and why you may have been misinterpreted, and take the opportunity to explain yourself better.