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

[Foxfyre]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

"You're an idiot" in response to an argument is a personal attack, that's clear. However, "You're an idiot" followed by a critically thought out reasoned argument refuting the other persons post may be spot on.

Only if personal attacks are permitted. In this thread they are not no matter what argument accompanies it because it is a personal attack just the same. Even if it would be spot on in another forum.

Truth must never be surpressed - have you read any post by ...

I know you're just having fun with this, but relating it to the thread topic, a discussion of ad hominem is not really concerned with issues of fact, truth, etc. It is a matter of focusing on a particular concept or argument rather than an opinion of the motive, intent, character, etc. of the person expressing the concept or making the argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Motive and opinion of a poster is certainly fair game for objective investigation, rebuttal, or support.

Attacks on a poster's character are, yes, ad hom attacks.

 

[Foxfyre]

Motive and opinion of a poster is certainly fair game for objective investigation, rebuttal, or support.

Attacks on a poster's character are, yes, ad hom attacks.

Commenting, assigning, or questioning a member's motive for offering a comment or argument is NOT fair game under a no ad hominem rule. Such is ad hominem and a competent debater will not engage in it and it is not legal when there is a no ad hominem rule.

 

[Pogo]

OK, "discredited" may have been overhyped. But clearly your definition is an outlier; everybody else's is much narrower.

Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking).

And your second sentence is a very good example of ad hominem.

For sake of argument how is everybody else's definition more credible than mine and was not also selected to support the argument given?

That's not ad hom in any way shape or form (!) -- that's an observation of a fallacy.

To include an ad hom I would have had to add, again just an example, "Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking) because you're an idiot".

Nope. To make that statement non ad hominem it would go something like "your definition supports your argument but is not credible on the strength of that alone as everybody else has offered different definitions that are much less broad." And you wouldn't have accused me of cherrypicking that definition. See? Of course, I would have countered with show me how my definition is less credible than everybody elses. And I'm going to guess you wouldn't be able to do that. And so we're back to square one.

OK, let's break it down "mathematically".
I analyzed that you went with an outlier definition, overly broad outside the accepted one, and did so selectively in order to drive your point where you wanted it to go.

Do I know that causation to be true? No I do not. It's speculation on my part.

That's why I said "I think". That's what keeps it from being an "accusation". It's kind of an insurance policy.

But I am perfectly agreeable to persons challenging that definition and offering their own. But I will challenge them to defend their challenge.

Off topic: Hombre is hungry so I'm off to make open face enchiladas. I shall return however.

What a great idea. Everybody to Foxy's hacienda por las enchiladas. pronto.

I've got stuff I'm supposed to be doing as well. Keeps getting interrupted by SWI -- Somebody Wrong on the Internet..
You know how it is.

Let's start with real definitions not opinions.

adjective 1.. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

“Republicans oppose healthcare” is not ad hom because it represents the continued GOP attack on ACA.

“You don't want to help the poor” can be ad hom but may not as well. Depends on how the comments is phrased.

“Why do you hate guys” is only ad hom if the person accused has never attacked LGBT or has not supported programs that hurt them.

“Democrats love Big Government” is not ad hom because Dems are not afraid of Government.

“You lied about XXX” is not ad hom if you lied about XXX.

And what exactly is the difference between XXX and XX?

Ad Hominem is literally arguing "to the man" (or "to the woman") as the case may be. I get it a lot and have no real qualms about using it. It's kind of funny.

Opponent makes what he thinks is some telling point in a debate. HIS opponent then argues not against the point that was made (i.e., that was factually false, or it is true but only under certain circumstances that don't apply here or the facts are irrelevant where the logic is invalid and your logic is invalid because "X") but against his opponent. "Your mother dresses you funny."

So do you or do you not agree with the definition provided in the OP? Be careful not to confuse ad hominem with the straw man or red herring or personal insult. I'm not sure I am following your argument here.

(I can appreciate those who do like to engage in logical fallacies and personal insults, even just in fun, but that is a different topic than identifying and hopefully clearing up what ad hominem actually is.)

Now then --
On what basis do you exclude "ad hominem" from "personal insult"?

Look at Example #10 in the poll options. That is ad hominem.
A personal insult is to say "You're a liar."

Yes it is, agreed.

But that's not what #10 says; it describes an act. If "you" actually did lie in that case, then it's a simple statement of fact.

The predicate adjective makes all the difference.

"You lied" -- describes an action in the past (whether true or not);
"You're a liar" describes a personal trait.

#10 is a direct attack on a person in almost every circumstance a person can conceive most especially in cases where the topic is subjective. It is a favorite ploy of trolls and thread derailers who instead of declaring your post wrong, they say you lied about it. Unless you have evidence that the person knows the truth and intentionally lied, the statement is ad hom because it draws a conclusion about the character of the person.

Not in itself it doesn't -- that's a leap. It may be one with a high degree of probability but it's still a leap.

"You're lying about point X" is a different statement from "you're a Liberative and Liberatives are liars". One is about specific point (i.e. doesn't exclude that "you" may be lying about point X but not about point Y) -- while the other is about a(n alleged) personal character trait (which would apply to all points pre-emptively and is therefore fallacious).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Motive and opinion of a poster is certainly fair game for objective investigation, rebuttal, or support.

Attacks on a poster's character are, yes, ad hom attacks.

Commenting, assigning, or questioning a member's motive for offering a comment or argument is NOT fair game under a no ad hominem rule. Such is ad hominem and a competent debater will not engage in it and it is not legal when there is a no ad hominem rule.

I disagree because opinions etc are certainly fair game, and investigations can be fairly and objectively investigated without ad homming an individual. The definition of ad hom cannot be twisted out of shape regardles of the CDZ rules because it defies reality.

Pogo's comment above is valid.

 

[Foxfyre]

And your second sentence is a very good example of ad hominem.

For sake of argument how is everybody else's definition more credible than mine and was not also selected to support the argument given?

That's not ad hom in any way shape or form (!) -- that's an observation of a fallacy.

To include an ad hom I would have had to add, again just an example, "Which I think means you engaged in Cherrypicking (a/k/a argument by selective evidence, card stacking) because you're an idiot".

Nope. To make that statement non ad hominem it would go something like "your definition supports your argument but is not credible on the strength of that alone as everybody else has offered different definitions that are much less broad." And you wouldn't have accused me of cherrypicking that definition. See? Of course, I would have countered with show me how my definition is less credible than everybody elses. And I'm going to guess you wouldn't be able to do that. And so we're back to square one.

OK, let's break it down "mathematically".
I analyzed that you went with an outlier definition, overly broad outside the accepted one, and did so selectively in order to drive your point where you wanted it to go.

Do I know that causation to be true? No I do not. It's speculation on my part.

That's why I said "I think". That's what keeps it from being an "accusation". It's kind of an insurance policy.

But I am perfectly agreeable to persons challenging that definition and offering their own. But I will challenge them to defend their challenge.

Off topic: Hombre is hungry so I'm off to make open face enchiladas. I shall return however.

What a great idea. Everybody to Foxy's hacienda por las enchiladas. pronto.

I've got stuff I'm supposed to be doing as well. Keeps getting interrupted by SWI -- Somebody Wrong on the Internet..
You know how it is.

Let's start with real definitions not opinions.

adjective 1.. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

“Republicans oppose healthcare” is not ad hom because it represents the continued GOP attack on ACA.

“You don't want to help the poor” can be ad hom but may not as well. Depends on how the comments is phrased.

“Why do you hate guys” is only ad hom if the person accused has never attacked LGBT or has not supported programs that hurt them.

“Democrats love Big Government” is not ad hom because Dems are not afraid of Government.

“You lied about XXX” is not ad hom if you lied about XXX.

And what exactly is the difference between XXX and XX?

So do you or do you not agree with the definition provided in the OP? Be careful not to confuse ad hominem with the straw man or red herring or personal insult. I'm not sure I am following your argument here.

(I can appreciate those who do like to engage in logical fallacies and personal insults, even just in fun, but that is a different topic than identifying and hopefully clearing up what ad hominem actually is.)

Now then --
On what basis do you exclude "ad hominem" from "personal insult"?

Look at Example #10 in the poll options. That is ad hominem.
A personal insult is to say "You're a liar."

Yes it is, agreed.

But that's not what #10 says; it describes an act. If "you" actually did lie in that case, then it's a simple statement of fact.

The predicate adjective makes all the difference.

"You lied" -- describes an action in the past (whether true or not);
"You're a liar" describes a personal trait.

#10 is a direct attack on a person in almost every circumstance a person can conceive most especially in cases where the topic is subjective. It is a favorite ploy of trolls and thread derailers who instead of declaring your post wrong, they say you lied about it. Unless you have evidence that the person knows the truth and intentionally lied, the statement is ad hom because it draws a conclusion about the character of the person.

Not in itself it doesn't -- that's a leap. It may be one with a high degree of probability but it's still a leap.

"You're lying about point X" is a different statement from "you're a Liberative and Liberatives are liars". One is about specific point (i.e. doesn't exclude that "you" may be lying about point X but not about point Y) -- while the other is about a(n alleged) personal character trait (which would apply to all points pre-emptively and is therefore fallacious).

The intent is the same though. To say "You lied about XXX" has the effect to turn the focus of the discussion on the person with an implication of dishonesty rather than on the argument he made. Noting that a person is a 'Liberative and Liberatives are liars' directed at a member unrelated to his/her argument is a personal insult. If it is used to rebut the person's argument it is ad hominem.

 

[Foxfyre]

Motive and opinion of a poster is certainly fair game for objective investigation, rebuttal, or support.

Attacks on a poster's character are, yes, ad hom attacks.

Commenting, assigning, or questioning a member's motive for offering a comment or argument is NOT fair game under a no ad hominem rule. Such is ad hominem and a competent debater will not engage in it and it is not legal when there is a no ad hominem rule.

I disagree because opinions etc are certainly fair game, and investigations can be fairly and objectively investigated without ad homming an individual. The definition of ad hom cannot be twisted out of shape regardles of the CDZ rules because it defies reality.

Pogo's comment above is valid.

I said nothing about opinions in that context. The context was whether questioning a persons motives is ad hominem. Try to keep up okay?

 

[Pogo]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

"You're an idiot" in response to an argument is a personal attack, that's clear. However, "You're an idiot" followed by a critically thought out reasoned argument refuting the other persons post may be spot on.

Only if personal attacks are permitted. In this thread they are not no matter what argument accompanies it because it is a personal attack just the same. Even if it would be spot on in another forum.

Truth must never be surpressed - have you read any post by ...

I know you're just having fun with this, but relating it to the thread topic, a discussion of ad hominem is not really concerned with issues of fact, truth, etc. It is a matter of focusing on a particular concept or argument rather than an opinion of the motive, intent, character, etc. of the person expressing the concept or making the argument.

"Motive" is not at all the same as "character".
A motive is subjective. A given motive may make sense to me but not to you, but whether it makes sense to either boils down to a matter or variant opinion. That doesn't imply I have good "character" and you don't.

 

[Foxfyre]

None of the above.

Ad hom doesn't apply to third parties, so that eliminates choices 1 and 2. The rest are either accusations or generalizations. The list could be used as multiple "which fallacy/fallacies is/are this?" which would be interesting...

But ad hom would be "you're an idiot". Second person direct character attack.
(not "you" you Foxy-- just an example )

Ad hom IS personal insult. I don't see how it isn't synonymous; the only distinction is that ad hom is used as a logical fallacy within an argument, whereas a personal insult could be used anywhere.

"You're an idiot" in response to an argument is a personal attack, that's clear. However, "You're an idiot" followed by a critically thought out reasoned argument refuting the other persons post may be spot on.

Only if personal attacks are permitted. In this thread they are not no matter what argument accompanies it because it is a personal attack just the same. Even if it would be spot on in another forum.

Truth must never be surpressed - have you read any post by ...

I know you're just having fun with this, but relating it to the thread topic, a discussion of ad hominem is not really concerned with issues of fact, truth, etc. It is a matter of focusing on a particular concept or argument rather than an opinion of the motive, intent, character, etc. of the person expressing the concept or making the argument.

"Motive" is not at all the same as "character".
A motive is subjective. It may make sense to me but not to you, but whether it makes sense boils down to a matter or variant opinion.

It doesn't matter what makes sense to you or what makes sense to me. Bringing a person's motive into the argument is ad hominem because it turns the discussion into a discussion of the member making the argument rather than focusing on the argument itself. It is making the person offering the argument the subject of discussion that makes something ad hominem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Motive and opinion of a poster is certainly fair game for objective investigation, rebuttal, or support.

Attacks on a poster's character are, yes, ad hom attacks.

Commenting, assigning, or questioning a member's motive for offering a comment or argument is NOT fair game under a no ad hominem rule. Such is ad hominem and a competent debater will not engage in it and it is not legal when there is a no ad hominem rule.

I disagree because opinions etc are certainly fair game, and investigations can be fairly and objectively investigated without ad homming an individual. The definition of ad hom cannot be twisted out of shape regardles of the CDZ rules because it defies reality.

Pogo's comment above is valid.

I said nothing about opinions in that context. The context was whether questioning a persons motives is ad hominem. Try to keep up okay?

I am up and you need to be polite. A person's subjective motives are perfectly accetable for examination as long as it is an objective search.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again, an acceptable definition of what is an ad hom attack.

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interestsrather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

 

[Dogmaphobe]

And what exactly is the difference between XXX and XX?

One X.


That was sure easy!

 

[Pogo]

"You're an idiot" in response to an argument is a personal attack, that's clear. However, "You're an idiot" followed by a critically thought out reasoned argument refuting the other persons post may be spot on.

Only if personal attacks are permitted. In this thread they are not no matter what argument accompanies it because it is a personal attack just the same. Even if it would be spot on in another forum.

Truth must never be surpressed - have you read any post by ...

I know you're just having fun with this, but relating it to the thread topic, a discussion of ad hominem is not really concerned with issues of fact, truth, etc. It is a matter of focusing on a particular concept or argument rather than an opinion of the motive, intent, character, etc. of the person expressing the concept or making the argument.

"Motive" is not at all the same as "character".
A motive is subjective. It may make sense to me but not to you, but whether it makes sense boils down to a matter or variant opinion.

It doesn't matter what makes sense to you or what makes sense to me. Bringing a person's motive into the argument is ad hominem because it turns the discussion into a discussion of the member making the argument rather than focusing on the argument itself. It is making the person offering the argument the subject of discussion that makes something ad hominem.

Nonsense. Every argument dynamic has some motive driving it. Without a motive it doesn't exist.

Commenting on what an adversary's motive might be could be a case of Poisoning the Well if negative, or simple analysis if positive. Neither makes a statement on the adversary's character.

Methinks (as noted at the very start) you're using an extremely broad definition to comprise a great many unrelated fallacies and even non-fallacies under the umbrella of "ad hominem". But, I hasten to add this caveat, as it seems it may be necessary -- that doesn't make you a bad person.

 

[Foxfyre]

Motive and opinion of a poster is certainly fair game for objective investigation, rebuttal, or support.

Attacks on a poster's character are, yes, ad hom attacks.

Commenting, assigning, or questioning a member's motive for offering a comment or argument is NOT fair game under a no ad hominem rule. Such is ad hominem and a competent debater will not engage in it and it is not legal when there is a no ad hominem rule.

I disagree because opinions etc are certainly fair game, and investigations can be fairly and objectively investigated without ad homming an individual. The definition of ad hom cannot be twisted out of shape regardles of the CDZ rules because it defies reality.

Pogo's comment above is valid.

I said nothing about opinions in that context. The context was whether questioning a persons motives is ad hominem. Try to keep up okay?

I am up and you need to be polite. A person's subjective motives are perfectly accetable for examination as long as it is an objective search.

I am quite polite. Extraordinarily so when a member's inadvertent or deliberate misrepresentation of what I have posted is a pet peeve of mine. And no, reference to a member's motive, subjective or objective, is not acceptable under a no adhominem rule unless the member proactively makes his/her motive a subject of discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Only if personal attacks are permitted. In this thread they are not no matter what argument accompanies it because it is a personal attack just the same. Even if it would be spot on in another forum.

Truth must never be surpressed - have you read any post by ...

I know you're just having fun with this, but relating it to the thread topic, a discussion of ad hominem is not really concerned with issues of fact, truth, etc. It is a matter of focusing on a particular concept or argument rather than an opinion of the motive, intent, character, etc. of the person expressing the concept or making the argument.

"Motive" is not at all the same as "character".
A motive is subjective. It may make sense to me but not to you, but whether it makes sense boils down to a matter or variant opinion.

It doesn't matter what makes sense to you or what makes sense to me. Bringing a person's motive into the argument is ad hominem because it turns the discussion into a discussion of the member making the argument rather than focusing on the argument itself. It is making the person offering the argument the subject of discussion that makes something ad hominem.

Nonsense. Every argument dynamic has some motive driving it. Without a motive it doesn't exist.

Commenting on what an adversary's motive might be could be a case of Poisoning the Well if negative, or simple analysis if positive. Neither makes a statement on the adversary's character.

Methinks (as noted at the very start) you're using an extremely broad definition to comprise a great many unrelated fallacies and even non-fallacies under the umbrella of "ad hominem". But, I hasten to add this caveat, as it seems it may be necessary -- that doesn't make you a bad person.

You cannot assign a motive to me without it turning the focus of the discussion onto me. In an objective discussion, which a no ad hominem rule is intended to produce, any discussion of a person's motive, unless he/she reveals it herself, is inappropriate and illegal. There is absolutely no necessity to bring a person's motives into the discussion unless the topic is the person's motives.

Ad hominem does cover an extremely broad spectrum, but it boils down to one simple concept: discussion of the argument rather than the person making the argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Motive and opinion of a poster is certainly fair game for objective investigation, rebuttal, or support.

Attacks on a poster's character are, yes, ad hom attacks.

Commenting, assigning, or questioning a member's motive for offering a comment or argument is NOT fair game under a no ad hominem rule. Such is ad hominem and a competent debater will not engage in it and it is not legal when there is a no ad hominem rule.

I disagree because opinions etc are certainly fair game, and investigations can be fairly and objectively investigated without ad homming an individual. The definition of ad hom cannot be twisted out of shape regardles of the CDZ rules because it defies reality.

Pogo's comment above is valid.

I said nothing about opinions in that context. The context was whether questioning a persons motives is ad hominem. Try to keep up okay?

I am up and you need to be polite. A person's subjective motives are perfectly accetable for examination as long as it is an objective search.

I am quite polite. Extraordinarily so as a member's inadvertent or deliberate misrepresentation of what I have posted is a pet peeve of mine. And no, reference to a member's motive, subjective or objective, is not acceptable under a no adhominem rule unless the member proactively makes his/her motive a subject of discussion.

Your pet peeve is your issue, not mine. I was neither inadvertent nor indeliberate in describing your position, I did not mischaracterize your point of view, and I certainly did not attack your character. I did rebuke your lack of politeness in correcting me.

An ad hom rule should be based on realistic and appropriate definitions To suggest your opinions are influenced because of your Christian commitment or libertarian beliefs are certainly not ad hom attacks if they are not attacking your character.

I do agree your character is almost meets the highest standards.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, have we now joyfully decided which ad homs are ad homs?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

Motive and opinion of a poster is certainly fair game for objective investigation, rebuttal, or support.

Attacks on a poster's character are, yes, ad hom attacks.

Commenting, assigning, or questioning a member's motive for offering a comment or argument is NOT fair game under a no ad hominem rule. Such is ad hominem and a competent debater will not engage in it and it is not legal when there is a no ad hominem rule.

I disagree because opinions etc are certainly fair game, and investigations can be fairly and objectively investigated without ad homming an individual. The definition of ad hom cannot be twisted out of shape regardles of the CDZ rules because it defies reality.

Pogo's comment above is valid.

I said nothing about opinions in that context. The context was whether questioning a persons motives is ad hominem. Try to keep up okay?

Questioning objectively a person's motives can never be ad hom in and of itself. You can't change the traditional meaning of words and terms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Apparently, Stat, ad hom is in the eye of the beholder. OH, vey!

 

[Pogo]

Truth must never be surpressed - have you read any post by ...

I know you're just having fun with this, but relating it to the thread topic, a discussion of ad hominem is not really concerned with issues of fact, truth, etc. It is a matter of focusing on a particular concept or argument rather than an opinion of the motive, intent, character, etc. of the person expressing the concept or making the argument.

"Motive" is not at all the same as "character".
A motive is subjective. It may make sense to me but not to you, but whether it makes sense boils down to a matter or variant opinion.

It doesn't matter what makes sense to you or what makes sense to me. Bringing a person's motive into the argument is ad hominem because it turns the discussion into a discussion of the member making the argument rather than focusing on the argument itself. It is making the person offering the argument the subject of discussion that makes something ad hominem.

Nonsense. Every argument dynamic has some motive driving it. Without a motive it doesn't exist.

Commenting on what an adversary's motive might be could be a case of Poisoning the Well if negative, or simple analysis if positive. Neither makes a statement on the adversary's character.

Methinks (as noted at the very start) you're using an extremely broad definition to comprise a great many unrelated fallacies and even non-fallacies under the umbrella of "ad hominem". But, I hasten to add this caveat, as it seems it may be necessary -- that doesn't make you a bad person.

You cannot assign a motive to me without it turning the focus of the discussion onto me. In an objective discussion, which a no ad hominem rule is intended to produce, any discussion of a person's motive, unless he/she reveals it herself, is inappropriate and illegal. There is absolutely no necessity to bring a person's motives into the discussion unless the topic is the person's motives.

Ad hominem does cover an extremely broad spectrum, but it boils down to one simple concept: discussion of the argument rather than the person making the argument.

Nope, can't agree. Any dissection and eventual understanding of an adversary's position with which one disagrees can legitimately involve an inspection of its derivation. After all any conclusion requires a bridge to get to it; questioning how those dots became connected is clearly valid analysis: "Do you believe that because ______?" That's simply a search for context, which in itself is innocuous.

Certainly that inspection can be used destructively -- but it's not a given that it must be.

Yes I do disagree strongly that ad hom "covers an extemely broad spectrum", as does every definition that's been posted here. It means attack on the adversary's character, and that's all it means. And that's why my choice, if I had had it, in your poll would have been "None of the above".


I suppose that makes me a Fundamentalist Logician ---- I believe in a strict interpretation of the Babble (of Plato, Aristotle, et al) and don't believe such fundamental laws may be tampered with.

And I'm fine with that; as in matters linguistic, I'm hyperconservative that way.