Debate Now Okay, let's talk about ad hominem.

[RKMBrown]

Nah. You just don't understand the difference between authoritarian views and libertarian views. Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why.

Ironic!

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me. I can however project that you meant it as an insult. But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

Basically this points out my earlier post, wrt. contexts.

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me

You got that part right.

I can however project that you meant it as an insult.

You got that part wrong.

But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

And you got that wrong too.

In essence my use of the term ironic was in response to your last sentence;

"Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why"

That was an ad hom on your part and it was ironic because you were projecting your own shortcoming.

For the record I never take anything posted in this forum personally because I always consider the source. I am well aware that many posters use vulgarities, insults and ad homs because they cannot actually defend their positions. I consider those responses to be tacit admissions of failure on their part and yes, it amuses me which accounts for the ironic chuckle on my part.

Why is not being locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions a shortcoming? As to the "I can project" sentence you may not understand the difference between "can" and "do." Might want to look that up.

As for my statement, it was just a statement of the facts as I see them. Not ad hom at all.

Except that you cannot back up your "statement of fact" with a single actual fact.

Since you can't that means that you have no facts and therefore you are wrong and did in fact post an ad hom.

You also failed to comprehend your shortcoming but that was only to be expected given your shortcoming. And yes, that is a statement of fact based upon your own posted words and therefore not an ad hom.

Your statements are even more ludicrous than the OPs. As is your attempt to deflect away from the topic to me. I'll take your answer as a positive that you don't know can from do.

 

[RKMBrown]

From your link...

I suggest reading that 10 times... then ask yourself did RKM provide support for his argument regarding the topic with reasoning and logic.. or did RKM merely deflect from topic to "attack the person who proposed" his argument regarding the topic?

I haven't quarreled with how you have expressed anything other than to point out the ad hominem and/or when you have wandered off topic in discussions with others.

And in order to discuss that paragraph we have to put it into its full context which includes the ad hominem statement to which it referred.

Which clearly states "Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments."

Now define "undermine him." Which appears to be the active part of the definition.

It means to make the person the issue in a way that calls his argument into question or diverts from the argument itself. It is intended to dismiss or weaken or discredit the argument because of who or what the person is and/or his associations or history or motive or intent or reputation or whatever.

From that view, it is impossible to discuss any analysis of why someone is wrong that is associated with their clear and obvious filtering of the facts of the case.

My statement was the equivalent of saying hey look you're wrong because you are not looking at all of the variables. You are saying that is an ad hom attack diverting from the topic. Uhmmm hello.... the variables of the topic most certainly are a part of the topic. Pointing out that a person is clearly ignoring facts is not an ad hom attack.

Saying that a person is ignoring anything IS an ad hom characterization. Saying 'you are wrong because there are other variables' is not the same as saying 'you are ignoring the variables.' The ignoring characterization are mild ad hom and would probably be let slide on a message board--they would not have escaped point deduction in formal debate.

The safest way is to say "You are wrong because your statement does not include such variables as. . . . "

Wrt your statement: Saying 'you are wrong because there are other variables' is not the same as saying 'you are ignoring the variables.'

Your assumption here is that by being "british" in your posts you can avoid loosing points. IOW I'm hearing you telll me that I should be subtle while making essentially the same point. Sure I know how to be "subtle" so as not to loose points. I also know how to be straight forward and less deceitful by saying what I mean instead of beating around the bush.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ironic!

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me. I can however project that you meant it as an insult. But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

Basically this points out my earlier post, wrt. contexts.

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me

You got that part right.

I can however project that you meant it as an insult.

You got that part wrong.

But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

And you got that wrong too.

In essence my use of the term ironic was in response to your last sentence;

"Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why"

That was an ad hom on your part and it was ironic because you were projecting your own shortcoming.

For the record I never take anything posted in this forum personally because I always consider the source. I am well aware that many posters use vulgarities, insults and ad homs because they cannot actually defend their positions. I consider those responses to be tacit admissions of failure on their part and yes, it amuses me which accounts for the ironic chuckle on my part.

Why is not being locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions a shortcoming? As to the "I can project" sentence you may not understand the difference between "can" and "do." Might want to look that up.

As for my statement, it was just a statement of the facts as I see them. Not ad hom at all.

Except that you cannot back up your "statement of fact" with a single actual fact.

Since you can't that means that you have no facts and therefore you are wrong and did in fact post an ad hom.

You also failed to comprehend your shortcoming but that was only to be expected given your shortcoming. And yes, that is a statement of fact based upon your own posted words and therefore not an ad hom.

Your statements are even more ludicrous than the OPs. As is your attempt to deflect away from the topic to me. I'll take your answer as a positive that you don't know can from do.

Thank you for tacitly conceding that you cannot substantiate your "statement of fact" and therefore did post an ad hom. Have a nice day.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me. I can however project that you meant it as an insult. But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

Basically this points out my earlier post, wrt. contexts.

Ad hom or not ad hom. I say your use of the term "ironic" is not ad hom, at all, well at least it's not to me

You got that part right.

I can however project that you meant it as an insult.

You got that part wrong.

But I choose to use your statement as support of my statement.

And you got that wrong too.

In essence my use of the term ironic was in response to your last sentence;

"Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why"

That was an ad hom on your part and it was ironic because you were projecting your own shortcoming.

For the record I never take anything posted in this forum personally because I always consider the source. I am well aware that many posters use vulgarities, insults and ad homs because they cannot actually defend their positions. I consider those responses to be tacit admissions of failure on their part and yes, it amuses me which accounts for the ironic chuckle on my part.

Why is not being locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions a shortcoming? As to the "I can project" sentence you may not understand the difference between "can" and "do." Might want to look that up.

As for my statement, it was just a statement of the facts as I see them. Not ad hom at all.

Except that you cannot back up your "statement of fact" with a single actual fact.

Since you can't that means that you have no facts and therefore you are wrong and did in fact post an ad hom.

You also failed to comprehend your shortcoming but that was only to be expected given your shortcoming. And yes, that is a statement of fact based upon your own posted words and therefore not an ad hom.

Your statements are even more ludicrous than the OPs. As is your attempt to deflect away from the topic to me. I'll take your answer as a positive that you don't know can from do.

Thank you for tacitly conceding that you cannot substantiate your "statement of fact" and therefore did post an ad hom. Have a nice day.

Thank you for constantly proving my statement of fact every day. Have a shitty life, you've earned it.

 

[Ravi]

If I say that the op is willfully ignorant have I engaged in ad hom?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You got that part right.

You got that part wrong.

And you got that wrong too.

In essence my use of the term ironic was in response to your last sentence;

"Your brain is locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions and you just don't understand why"

That was an ad hom on your part and it was ironic because you were projecting your own shortcoming.

For the record I never take anything posted in this forum personally because I always consider the source. I am well aware that many posters use vulgarities, insults and ad homs because they cannot actually defend their positions. I consider those responses to be tacit admissions of failure on their part and yes, it amuses me which accounts for the ironic chuckle on my part.

Why is not being locked into a left vs. right war of epic proportions a shortcoming? As to the "I can project" sentence you may not understand the difference between "can" and "do." Might want to look that up.

As for my statement, it was just a statement of the facts as I see them. Not ad hom at all.

Except that you cannot back up your "statement of fact" with a single actual fact.

Since you can't that means that you have no facts and therefore you are wrong and did in fact post an ad hom.

You also failed to comprehend your shortcoming but that was only to be expected given your shortcoming. And yes, that is a statement of fact based upon your own posted words and therefore not an ad hom.

Your statements are even more ludicrous than the OPs. As is your attempt to deflect away from the topic to me. I'll take your answer as a positive that you don't know can from do.

Thank you for tacitly conceding that you cannot substantiate your "statement of fact" and therefore did post an ad hom. Have a nice day.

Thank you for constantly proving my statement of fact every day. Have a shitty life, you've earned it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If I say that the op is willfully ignorant have I engaged in ad hom?

Only if that was false.

It might be fairer to claim that the OP is being disingenuous.

However both of those terms are subjective since they cannot be independently substantiated so they could be considered an ad hom by the OP.

 

[Foxfyre]

OP means 'opening post'. It is fair game to discuss the pros and cons of the argument or hypothesis put forth in the opening post. That is encouraged as the purpose for the thread.

The author of the opening post is not the subject of the thread and to discuss the author's intent or disingenuousness in posting it or whatever is in fact ad hominem and illegal per the rules for the thread.

To quote a member's post and say that it contradicts the member's previous post number whatever is not ad hominem. To say that the member's post cannot be supported or defended is not ad hominem but is really bad form in debate unless you show how the post cannot be supported or defended.

To accuse the author of the post of disingenuousness or to infer that is ad hominem.

 

[320 Years of History]

I didn't answer the poll question because all of them strike me as merely being statements, presumably of facts. I think of ad hominem as a form of fallacious argumentation, and none of the poll options are arguments.

• Ad hominem arguments:
  • You were wrong about XYZ; therefore you're wrong about ABC.
  • He lied about ABC. He's probably lying about this too.
  • I think abortion is morally wrong. Of course you do, you're a Catholic.
  • My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night!
    
  • Trump has lied left and right to curry favor with voters. So have Cruz and Clinton. -- This is a special kind of ad hominem argument called tu quoque. It is invalid because the retort does nothing to establish or refute the truth of the initial claim.
  • Tom Cruise's movies suck. He's a Scientologist. -- A special kind of ad hominem called "poisoning the well"
• Not ad hominem arguments:
  • You were wrong about XYZ. -- This is just a statement (like everything in the poll) that has no argument.
  • Any other isolated statement of fact or supposed fact.
  • Any non rhetorical question.
• Ad hominem, but valid too:
  • My opponent suggests that lowering taxes on Ben and Jerry's ice cream will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night! -- This version of the argument above is ad hominem; however, it's also a valid ad hominem response because the fact that she eats so much B&J ice cream is indicative of the possible existence of a conflict of interest and thus legitimate (valid/not fallacious) to note.

Do you agree with the definition of ad hominem as presented in this OP?

I agree with the definition at the link you provided. I didn't read the whole OP. I read only the content at the link you shared, so if there's some other or amplifying definition in the OP itself, I haven't seen it.

Do you agree that ad hominem is used to undermine the person instead of the argument he/she is making and/or to derail the discussion?

Yes, mostly. "Mostly" because of two things:

• except for whether ad hominem line or argument is used to derail a discussion, and
• although ad hominem attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.

Derailment:
I can't say that a or every user of the fallacy explicitly intends to derail the conversation. It may well be they truly believe they are making a valid point. (Believing something never makes it factually so -- notwithstanding the saying "perception is reality" -- as Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" in The Republic makes clear.) I'm sure, however, some users of the fallacy do intend to derail discussions by doing so. Whether or not the ad hominem argument does derail the discussion depends on the audience and other participant(s) to the conversation. If they allow it to derail the discussion, well, it is thus derailed. LOL

Valid ad hominem:
An ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on.

In another case, when President Bill Clinton fibbed on national television about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, accusations that he was a liar were not entirely unjust. Although a supporter might argue that Clinton’s sex life was not directly relevant to his ability to govern, his ability to adhere to the truth could certainly be, and his willingness to lie on this occasion could call into question the veracity of his remarks on other subjects.

Of course, one should not discount everything any person says, no matter how badly he or she has been discredited. The fact that a person lies or behaves improperly on one occasion does not mean that he or she lies or behaves inappropriately all the time. Again, a critique of a person’s character should not prevent further examination of the arguments at hand. After all, which position is right is usually independent of a person’s character or conduct.

The keys re: ad hominem arguments' validity or lack thereof are found in the answers to the questions below:

• How relevant is a political candidate’s character or action to his or her ability to perform in office?
• How pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain?

If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored.

Do you think most members understand the difference between ad hominem and personal insults?

I have no idea. I don't interact with most members. I have seen both insults and ad hominem arguments on USMB.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't answer the poll question because all of them strike me as merely being statements, presumably of facts. I think of ad hominem as a form of fallacious argumentation, and none of the poll options are arguments.

• Ad hominem arguments:
  • You were wrong about XYZ; therefore you're wrong about ABC.
  • He lied about ABC. He's probably lying about this too.
  • I think abortion is morally wrong. Of course you do, you're a Catholic.
  • My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night!
    
  • Trump has lied left and right to curry favor with voters. So have Cruz and Clinton. -- This is a special kind of ad hominem argument called tu quoque. It is invalid because the retort does nothing to establish or refute the truth of the initial claim.
  • Tom Cruise's movies suck. He's a Scientologist. -- A special kind of ad hominem called "poisoning the well"
• Not ad hominem arguments:
  • You were wrong about XYZ. -- This is just a statement (like everything in the poll) that has no argument.
  • Any other isolated statement of fact or supposed fact.
  • Any non rhetorical question.
• Ad hominem, but valid too:
  • My opponent suggests that lowering taxes on Ben and Jerry's ice cream will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night! -- This version of the argument above is ad hominem; however, it's also a valid ad hominem response because the fact that she eats so much B&J ice cream is indicative of the possible existence of a conflict of interest and thus legitimate (valid/not fallacious) to note.

Do you agree with the definition of ad hominem as presented in this OP?

I agree with the definition at the link you provided. I didn't read the whole OP. I read only the content at the link you shared, so if there's some other or amplifying definition in the OP itself, I haven't seen it.

Do you agree that ad hominem is used to undermine the person instead of the argument he/she is making and/or to derail the discussion?

Yes, mostly. "Mostly" because of two things:

• except for whether ad hominem line or argument is used to derail a discussion, and
• although ad hominem attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.

Derailment:
I can't say that a or every user of the fallacy explicitly intends to derail the conversation. It may well be they truly believe they are making a valid point. (Believing something never makes it factually so -- notwithstanding the saying "perception is reality" -- as Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" in The Republic makes clear.) I'm sure, however, some users of the fallacy do intend to derail discussions by doing so. Whether or not the ad hominem argument does derail the discussion depends on the audience and other participant(s) to the conversation. If they allow it to derail the discussion, well, it is thus derailed. LOL

Valid ad hominem:
An ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on.

In another case, when President Bill Clinton fibbed on national television about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, accusations that he was a liar were not entirely unjust. Although a supporter might argue that Clinton’s sex life was not directly relevant to his ability to govern, his ability to adhere to the truth could certainly be, and his willingness to lie on this occasion could call into question the veracity of his remarks on other subjects.

Of course, one should not discount everything any person says, no matter how badly he or she has been discredited. The fact that a person lies or behaves improperly on one occasion does not mean that he or she lies or behaves inappropriately all the time. Again, a critique of a person’s character should not prevent further examination of the arguments at hand. After all, which position is right is usually independent of a person’s character or conduct.

The keys re: ad hominem arguments' validity or lack thereof are found in the answers to the questions below:

• How relevant is a political candidate’s character or action to his or her ability to perform in office?
• How pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain?

If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored.

Do you think most members understand the difference between ad hominem and personal insults?

I have no idea. I don't interact with most members. I have seen both insults and ad hominem arguments on USMB.

I don't respond to chopped up posts as pulling a single statement from a member's post too often takes a statement or question out of context when, if it was left in its full context, would give it a much different meaning.

But just responding to your initial comment, I will say first that ad hominem is an adjective and therefore is not necessarily ad hominem as a form of fallacious argumentation, as you started out. The accurate statement would be to say that an ad hominem argument is a form of fallacious argumentation.


Therefore No. 1 in the poll: "Republicans voted against Obamacare" is accurate and a non prejudicial statement of fact whether or not used in an argument. Republicans in Congress did in fact vote against Obamacare. It could be used as an argument or even an ad hominem argument, but at face value is in no way ad hominem.

However, No. 2 in the poll: "Republicans oppose healthcare", used as a statement of fact or as an argument, is ad hominem because it makes an assumption about Republicans that nobody is in a position to know, there is no history or evidence to support, and in most cases is a prejudicial opinion about Republicans. Whether used as argument or statement of fact, it is ad hominem.

In this discussion I argued for the formal and classic definition of ad hominem which in its simplest form means drawing assumptions about or assigning a characteristic about another rather than stating verifiable fact. It is ad hominem whether or not it is used to argue a point just as every other adjective is what it is whether or not it is used to argue a point.

It can be used to make a personal insult but does not necessarily have to be an insult.

Definition of AD HOMINEM

 

[Asclepias]

IMO, the odd numbered sentences in the poll are not ad hominem. All the even numbered sentences are.

NOTE: The poll options are for example only and are NOT topics to be discussed other than as examples of ad hominem or why they are not.​

Since the structured discussion forum gives the OP license to make up to three rules for conduct of the discussion, a 'no ad hominem' rule is often one of those three rules. C_K has guaranteed that the OP's rules will be enforced in this forum, but IMO the ad hominem issue is often poorly understood or not understood at all, and this makes it difficult for the mods to enforce. And I'm sure they are weary of fielding reports of ad hominem that are not ad hominem.

So okay, let's see if we can't clarify and understand what ad hominem actually is.

Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.

There are cases where consciously or unconsciously people start to question the opponent or his personal association rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults but they are somehow different in nature and the distinction is very subtle. . . .
Ad Hominem - Examples and Definition of Ad Hominem​

And obviously, to me anyway, ad hominem is often inadvertent and the person doesn't even realize he/she is engaging in it. But it also is often used in lieu of the direct personal insult to indirectly attack another member and/or intentionally to derail a thread or discussion.

To evaluate whether a statement is or is not ad hominem, all we have to do is ask ourselves this question:

Are we addressing the person's argument? Or are we addressing the character, wishes, hopes, wants, intention, character flaws, attributes etc. of the person in making the argument?

Ad hominem is different from personal insult in that ad hominem suggests motive or intent or assigns attributes to the person. Personal insult directly attacks the person.

Important: Criticizing a person's argument is neither ad hominem or personal insult in itself.

Not ad hominem or personal insult: You are wrong that XXX is not important for national security.

Ad hominem: You don't support national security.

Personal insult: You are a peacenik. You are a bleeding heart liberal.​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominem or personal insults. (Yes I know this is a weird rule to include for this particular topic. )

2. Stay on topic and if examples of ad hominem or personal insults are posted by members, understand that such are examples only and are not an invitation to discuss whatever other topics are used for the examples. Please appreciate the spirit of this request and don't use it as a means to take shots at other members.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion but if you use links to reinforce or support your argument, these must be prefaced by a short summary of the argument you are making in your own words and what we will learn if we use the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you agree with the definition of ad hominem as presented in this OP? Do you agree that ad hominem is used to undermine the person instead of the argument he/she is making and/or to derail the discussion? Do you think most members understand the difference between ad hominem and personal insults?

Number 7 is an ad hominem if not followed by a fact.

Yes.
Yes if intentional. I think for most people its an unconscious evasiver manuever.
No

 

[Foxfyre]

IMO, the odd numbered sentences in the poll are not ad hominem. All the even numbered sentences are.

NOTE: The poll options are for example only and are NOT topics to be discussed other than as examples of ad hominem or why they are not.​

Since the structured discussion forum gives the OP license to make up to three rules for conduct of the discussion, a 'no ad hominem' rule is often one of those three rules. C_K has guaranteed that the OP's rules will be enforced in this forum, but IMO the ad hominem issue is often poorly understood or not understood at all, and this makes it difficult for the mods to enforce. And I'm sure they are weary of fielding reports of ad hominem that are not ad hominem.

So okay, let's see if we can't clarify and understand what ad hominem actually is.

Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.

There are cases where consciously or unconsciously people start to question the opponent or his personal association rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults but they are somehow different in nature and the distinction is very subtle. . . .
Ad Hominem - Examples and Definition of Ad Hominem​

And obviously, to me anyway, ad hominem is often inadvertent and the person doesn't even realize he/she is engaging in it. But it also is often used in lieu of the direct personal insult to indirectly attack another member and/or intentionally to derail a thread or discussion.

To evaluate whether a statement is or is not ad hominem, all we have to do is ask ourselves this question:

Are we addressing the person's argument? Or are we addressing the character, wishes, hopes, wants, intention, character flaws, attributes etc. of the person in making the argument?

Ad hominem is different from personal insult in that ad hominem suggests motive or intent or assigns attributes to the person. Personal insult directly attacks the person.

Important: Criticizing a person's argument is neither ad hominem or personal insult in itself.

Not ad hominem or personal insult: You are wrong that XXX is not important for national security.

Ad hominem: You don't support national security.

Personal insult: You are a peacenik. You are a bleeding heart liberal.​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominem or personal insults. (Yes I know this is a weird rule to include for this particular topic. )

2. Stay on topic and if examples of ad hominem or personal insults are posted by members, understand that such are examples only and are not an invitation to discuss whatever other topics are used for the examples. Please appreciate the spirit of this request and don't use it as a means to take shots at other members.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion but if you use links to reinforce or support your argument, these must be prefaced by a short summary of the argument you are making in your own words and what we will learn if we use the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you agree with the definition of ad hominem as presented in this OP? Do you agree that ad hominem is used to undermine the person instead of the argument he/she is making and/or to derail the discussion? Do you think most members understand the difference between ad hominem and personal insults?

Number 7 is an ad hominem if not followed by a fact.

Yes.
Yes if intentional. I think for most people its an unconscious evasiver manuever.
No

Wow I had forgotten about this old thread. Thanks for reviving it.

I gently disagree that No. 7 is necessarily ad hominem. I should have clarified all Democrats in congress or whatever but the intent was those with responsibility to vote for or against a specific program. It may be an incorrect statement, and it can be used as a criticism or even as an intended insult, but it is not ad hominem.

All ad hominem is not intended as insult. And all insults are not ad hominem.

To say all Democrats oppose programs like that, however, is ad hominem. That draws an inference about Democrats that has nothing to do with the actual evidence of what each individual does or does not support. To say "Of course you supported it. You're a Democrat (or a Republican or a liberal or a conservative or whatever)" is ad hominem.

Likewise saying all the Republicans in Congress opposed the Affordable Care Act also may or may not be a correct statement, but it is not ad hominem. To say that Republicans, without qualifying which Republicans, oppose the Affordable Care Act or healthcare or anything of that nature IS ad hominem. It assumes something about the character or mindset of those who happen to be registered Republican that has nothing to do with the actual evidence of what each individual does or does not support.

 

[JakeStarkey]

However, when it is written that ""Republicans oppose[national] healthcare", as such that it is not an ad hom attack, it is a fact.

There is no ad hom attack when I write that her libertarian ideology generally informs Foxfire's opinions on the principle of government national health care.