3 ms·

>You start off with an implied ad-hominem attack As a side point - if in a discussion someone brings up someone elses professional background/employer/affiliat

>You start off with an implied ad-hominem attack As a side point - if in a discussion someone brings up someone elses professional background/employer/affiliation (the implication being that it undermines their authority) is that really an ad-hominem attack?

3pt14159 18y ago
Technically, yes, but ad hominem circumstantial, as it is called, is generally acceptable in public discourse if the primary party making the argument will see direct gain AND the logic behind his argument is also reduced, independent of the speaker. Say Joe (a libertarian) is arguing for legalization of smut films in public theaters. Frank (a smut rental store owner) is arguing the opposite case. Joe may say, "you shouldn't tell adults what they can or cannot watch in a theater because that encroaches on their rights." Frank will then reply, "Don't listen to him, he's just the quack libertarian 'round here, this is about protecting our public places for our kids." Joe's reply of, "18+ theaters are out of the accessible areas of children and therefore his argument is flawed, and furthermore Frank is most likely primarily concerned about reduced profits of smut rentals due to market substitution towards theater movies." Frank's original reply - That Joe is a "quack libertarian" is invalid because it exposes no hidden motive on Joe's part. Joe's reply is valid because the public should understand all reasons why Frank does not want a public smut theater or they may fall for a "lie of omission" and because Joe attacked Frank's primary argument.
- zzzmarcus 18y ago
  Great explanation. I learned something. So maybe my critique of her comment being an implied ad hominem is unfair "Mr. Su is a real-estate consultant and a former REO broker." Still, it's not obvious that he stands to profit off more foreclosures based on his status as a consultant, and the fact that he was formerly a broker seems to lend credibility to his expertise rather than detracting from it.
- michaelneale 18y ago
  Thanks - good explanation.

3pt14159 18y ago

Technically, yes, but ad hominem circumstantial, as it is called, is generally acceptable in public discourse if the primary party making the argument will see direct gain AND the logic behind his argument is also reduced, independent of the speaker. Say Joe (a libertarian) is arguing for legalization of smut films in public theaters. Frank (a smut rental store owner) is arguing the opposite case. Joe may say, "you shouldn't tell adults what they can or cannot watch in a theater because that encroaches on their rights." Frank will then reply, "Don't listen to him, he's just the quack libertarian 'round here, this is about protecting our public places for our kids." Joe's reply of, "18+ theaters are out of the accessible areas of children and therefore his argument is flawed, and furthermore Frank is most likely primarily concerned about reduced profits of smut rentals due to market substitution towards theater movies." Frank's original reply - That Joe is a "quack libertarian" is invalid because it exposes no hidden motive on Joe's part. Joe's reply is valid because the public should understand all reasons why Frank does not want a public smut theater or they may fall for a "lie of omission" and because Joe attacked Frank's primary argument.

zzzmarcus 18y ago
Great explanation. I learned something. So maybe my critique of her comment being an implied ad hominem is unfair "Mr. Su is a real-estate consultant and a former REO broker." Still, it's not obvious that he stands to profit off more foreclosures based on his status as a consultant, and the fact that he was formerly a broker seems to lend credibility to his expertise rather than detracting from it.
michaelneale 18y ago
Thanks - good explanation.