3 ms·

Relevant portion of original link: Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular posit

by 300bps 12y ago

Relevant portion of original link: Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; Essentially, you can't discount everything a particular entity says because you or others perceive them as biased. If you disagree with their position, attack the position, not the person.

bluecalm 12y ago
The position was given without any argument other than authority (of Heritage Foundation). It such cases questioning the authority you just invoked is very natural and good thing for the discussion. If you want discussion about specific arguments, give the arguments (which original poster hasn't provided). You can't expect to just claim something basing it on authority and having other side investigate every point in reasoning that authority gives (and even have them explore and find points themselves) as it puts discussion in imbalance: you do nothing, but invoke authority, the other side is expected to dig deep into every point that authority makes. On the other hand if it's shown that the authority is very biased then either you show specific arguments (which the other side is not allowed to dismiss on bias of the source) or you admit defeat. That's the way to deal with arguments from authority but some posters were very charitable anyway and gave more analysis than original claim deserved. Ad-hominem refers to dismissing specific points/arguments based on who made them. Dismissing an argument from authority this way is actually correct way to handle it. The difference I hope is obvious. The other poster is wrong, misuses common terms and to top it is arrogant about it that's why he is downvoted.

by 300bps 12y ago

bluecalm 12y ago

The position was given without any argument other than authority (of Heritage Foundation). It such cases questioning the authority you just invoked is very natural and good thing for the discussion. If you want discussion about specific arguments, give the arguments (which original poster hasn't provided). You can't expect to just claim something basing it on authority and having other side investigate every point in reasoning that authority gives (and even have them explore and find points themselves) as it puts discussion in imbalance: you do nothing, but invoke authority, the other side is expected to dig deep into every point that authority makes. On the other hand if it's shown that the authority is very biased then either you show specific arguments (which the other side is not allowed to dismiss on bias of the source) or you admit defeat. That's the way to deal with arguments from authority but some posters were very charitable anyway and gave more analysis than original claim deserved. Ad-hominem refers to dismissing specific points/arguments based on who made them. Dismissing an argument from authority this way is actually correct way to handle it. The difference I hope is obvious. The other poster is wrong, misuses common terms and to top it is arrogant about it that's why he is downvoted.