4 ms·
Ad Hominem
by rockyleal 13y ago
Ad Hominem
- cheald 13y agoCriticism of a writer is only argumentum ad hominem if that criticism is an attempt to invalidate the the writer's statement by means of questioning his authority, which is certainly not what the OP was doing. Discussing the author's qualities outside of a debate of of the article's thesis is totally in-bounds.
- saraid216 13y ago> by means of questioning his authority Not authority; credibility. It's a nitpick, but the distinction is important when we're discussing government agents. Credibility is essentially rhetorical authority ("I am willing to take your word because I consider you an expert in the relevant domain"), rather than the kind of authority derived from official bestowment of power.
- graeme 13y agoAuthority is also the right word: Authority: 3. • a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert: she was an authority on the stock market. From the Oxford American Dictionary It's this meaning of the word authority used in Appeal to Authority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- saraid216 13y agoRight. That's what rhetorical authority is. But we're talking about this guy named Stewart Baker, who just so happens to have authority as a senior officer of the executive branch of the United States Government. This is also a type of authority. It is not the relevant type of authority when discussing whether or not a statement is an ad hominem.
- cheald 13y agoYou're right - that's a much better word. I think the sentiment remains the same though.
- DannyBee 13y agoI don't think this means what you think it means :) I addressed exactly the claims he was quoted about in the article, and pointed out other issues with his reasoning. I pointed out these exact reasoning flaws seem to be a recurring issue with him. I did not attempt to invalidate his argument by attacking his character, I attacked his character on the side.
- Terr_ 13y agoYou've got it backwards. Compare: "Because he's a nitwit, his arguments are wrong." = Ad Hominem "Because his arguments are wrong, he's a nitwit." = Not Ad Hominem
- alexqgb 13y agoBingo. It's impossible to point out that someone is blatantly lying without drawing attention to the fact that they are the sort of person who would blatantly lie. Character and speech are inseparable. As the line from Shakespeare says "Speak, so that I may see thee." Indeed, we are constantly evaluating the intelligence, integrity, goodwill, and authority of people based—in large part—on what they say. It's absurd to think that we cannot demolish an argument as dishonest, stupid, ill-informed, or made in bad faith because doing so would inevitably imply the same of the speaker. One of the he best reasons for maintaining a culture of free speech is that it permits the dangerous idiots to self-identify.
- ryguytilidie 13y agoCongratulations for using a word you don't know the definition of!
- ludston 13y agoHey, I'm wondering about what effect you're trying to achieve. Do you mind spending a few moments telling me about it?
- Crito 13y agoI'm not him, but such ridicule, while perhaps not appropriate for HN, is often effective at getting the target to think before they speak in the future (at least concerning the particular topic being discussed). People don't like being ridiculed, so ridicule often gets through to them when straightforward corrections do not.
- ludston 13y agoI wish you were the person I were addressing. I'd like to challenge the following assumptions: "The target" didn't think before he posted. There is value in silencing "the target". "Ridicule often gets through to them -"
- ryguytilidie 13y agoHey sorry, didn't see this response til now. I've grown a bit tired of the endless snark and grasping at straws to make others look bad. I felt like mocking a really terrible, obtuse point would be fair.