Man of Ethics
Gold Member
- Feb 28, 2021
- 4,682
- 2,134
- 248
The fallacies of ad hominem argument have been pointed out ad infinitum. Some of the sources pointing out these fallacies have been as minor as a post or even a tweet, while others have been philosophical works printed in respectable journals. One of the latter is ``Fallacies in Ad Hominem Arguments" by David Reidhav, Lena Wahlberg, and Christian Dahlman presented in Cogency Vol. 3, N0. 2 (105-124), Summer 2011 and referred to as [1] below.
In this nanoessay I would like to point out an overlooked fallacy of the ad hominem argument -- sometimes the negative qualities ascribed to the OP make him/her more rather then less competent. According to [1], there are three main types of ad hominem argument: 1) Abusive ad hominem; 2) circumstantial ad hominem; and 3) as tu quoque. An abusive ad hominem is usually an insult -- if you hold that opinion then you are (...). An "as tu quoque" is pointing out that the OP is guilty of something they are arguing against. If CCitizen has used strong language on Social Media, he should not speak against ad hominem arguments. I will not deny being rude on Social Media, although I have not done so unprovoked.
The circumstantial ad hominem is the true ad hominem -- "given that the OP has the following negative characteristics, he/she can not be an authority on the subject discussed". This ad hominem may have several obvious problems. First, the negative characteristic in question may be falsely attributed to the OP. Mostly Liberals but also Conservatives may slander those who disagree with them -- in something as trivial as a Twitter exchange between two strangers with a few followers each or something as important as debates in the US Government. Second, the person attributing the negative characteristic to the OP may have a negative characteristic of the same or greater severity. If as tu quoque argument has any validity, then the second point stands. Third, and most importantly, the negative characteristic possessed by OP may increase rather then decrease his/her credibility.
Very often the faults of Society at large are pointed out by people who are either anonymous or have no social and professional standing to lose or both. The fact that a person has "rogue" social standing may make his/her assessment of Society more rather then less credible. In some societies, criticism of values and biases strongly held by the public or the elite is punishable by the loss of professional and social standing. Very few respectable people would be willing to pay such price.
Both pure Capitalism and pure Communism violate the rights and break lives of many people. In USSR in 1960s and '70s very few dissidents were willing to openly denounce the excesses of Communism. Law abiding people did not want to violate Article 70 of Soviet Penal Code by committing "anti-Soviet propaganda". Most professional criminals had no problem pointing out Society's faults. In modern Western Academia, less then a handful of professors are willing to criticize the Liberal hegemony in the Institutions of Higher Learning. Professors fear being fired and blacklisted. Social Media users are much more willing to criticize the excesses of Liberalism. Some people who are not anonymous, but are considered rogue are also willing to deviate from Political Correctness.
In my opinion, both Liberal and Conservative agendas have faults and virtues. I agree with Liberals on helping all people in need. I agree with Liberals on restricting firearms, which cost the lives of over 30,000 people in USA each year. I strongly oppose Liberal Identity Politics. I strongly oppose Liberal censorship of Social Media and silencing, harassing, deplatforming and blacklisting anyone whom they find offensive. I support Conservative commitment to Equality of Opportunity and Free Expression. I strongly oppose Conservative opposition to Welfare State. I strongly oppose Conservatives who put Second Amendment above the tens of thousand lives lost each year. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum will vehemently disagree with me.
The values of some past and present societies would be considered monstrous by modern standards and perhaps they are monstrous indeed. Even in such places, the majority of respectable people may have considered Society's values to be just. An obvious example of such society is Antebellum American South. By 1850, Abolitionist opposition to Slavery was strong, but in the first half of 18th century, Slavery was considered natural and accepted. American forefathers did not take a decisive stand against slavery.
In this nanoessay I would like to point out an overlooked fallacy of the ad hominem argument -- sometimes the negative qualities ascribed to the OP make him/her more rather then less competent. According to [1], there are three main types of ad hominem argument: 1) Abusive ad hominem; 2) circumstantial ad hominem; and 3) as tu quoque. An abusive ad hominem is usually an insult -- if you hold that opinion then you are (...). An "as tu quoque" is pointing out that the OP is guilty of something they are arguing against. If CCitizen has used strong language on Social Media, he should not speak against ad hominem arguments. I will not deny being rude on Social Media, although I have not done so unprovoked.
The circumstantial ad hominem is the true ad hominem -- "given that the OP has the following negative characteristics, he/she can not be an authority on the subject discussed". This ad hominem may have several obvious problems. First, the negative characteristic in question may be falsely attributed to the OP. Mostly Liberals but also Conservatives may slander those who disagree with them -- in something as trivial as a Twitter exchange between two strangers with a few followers each or something as important as debates in the US Government. Second, the person attributing the negative characteristic to the OP may have a negative characteristic of the same or greater severity. If as tu quoque argument has any validity, then the second point stands. Third, and most importantly, the negative characteristic possessed by OP may increase rather then decrease his/her credibility.
Very often the faults of Society at large are pointed out by people who are either anonymous or have no social and professional standing to lose or both. The fact that a person has "rogue" social standing may make his/her assessment of Society more rather then less credible. In some societies, criticism of values and biases strongly held by the public or the elite is punishable by the loss of professional and social standing. Very few respectable people would be willing to pay such price.
Both pure Capitalism and pure Communism violate the rights and break lives of many people. In USSR in 1960s and '70s very few dissidents were willing to openly denounce the excesses of Communism. Law abiding people did not want to violate Article 70 of Soviet Penal Code by committing "anti-Soviet propaganda". Most professional criminals had no problem pointing out Society's faults. In modern Western Academia, less then a handful of professors are willing to criticize the Liberal hegemony in the Institutions of Higher Learning. Professors fear being fired and blacklisted. Social Media users are much more willing to criticize the excesses of Liberalism. Some people who are not anonymous, but are considered rogue are also willing to deviate from Political Correctness.
In my opinion, both Liberal and Conservative agendas have faults and virtues. I agree with Liberals on helping all people in need. I agree with Liberals on restricting firearms, which cost the lives of over 30,000 people in USA each year. I strongly oppose Liberal Identity Politics. I strongly oppose Liberal censorship of Social Media and silencing, harassing, deplatforming and blacklisting anyone whom they find offensive. I support Conservative commitment to Equality of Opportunity and Free Expression. I strongly oppose Conservative opposition to Welfare State. I strongly oppose Conservatives who put Second Amendment above the tens of thousand lives lost each year. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum will vehemently disagree with me.
The values of some past and present societies would be considered monstrous by modern standards and perhaps they are monstrous indeed. Even in such places, the majority of respectable people may have considered Society's values to be just. An obvious example of such society is Antebellum American South. By 1850, Abolitionist opposition to Slavery was strong, but in the first half of 18th century, Slavery was considered natural and accepted. American forefathers did not take a decisive stand against slavery.
Last edited:
