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

[JakeStarkey]

"commenting on a persons motives is not a statement on a person's character" at times.

If one is ideologically a communist or a libertarian, I would that would speak to motive without being an ad hom.

 

[Valerie]

i brought bourbon balls as a peace offering to go along with all that goodwill coffee...

FTR i have a serious point to make, so bear with me...

if i were to now wag my tsk tsk finger and warn about "food fights" while alluding to certain participants...

if i were to frame each and every topic in this manner as if i was above it all ^ would that be considered insulting or ad hom..??


( ^ those are sugar coated bourbon balls, i swear!)

 

[Foxfyre]

"commenting on a persons motives is not a statement on a person's character" at times.

If one is ideologically a communist or a libertarian, I would that would speak to motive without being an ad hom.

One can speak to motives of those who identify themselves as libertarian or communist as to why people identify themselves as libertarian or communist. But unless that is the topic, their motives or their I.D. is irrelevent to the validity of the statement they post.

To avoid ad hominem all a person has to do is focus on the post itself and discuss it and leave the member who posted it out of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

i brought bourbon balls as a peace offering to go along with all that goodwill coffee...

FTR i have a serious point to make, so bear with me...

if i were to now wag my tsk tsk finger and warn about "food fights" while alluding to certain participants...

if i were to frame each and every topic in this manner as if i was above it all ^ would that be considered insulting or ad hom..??


( ^ those are sugar coated bourbon balls, i swear!)

While I am cautious about the sincerity of good will based on your earlier posts that you or somebody else deleted, I will choose to accept your comments here at face value. (Note: that statement is not ad hominem either.) And thanks for the bourbon balls. I love them.

Alluding to certain members while warning about 'food fights' could be appropriate and not at all ad hominem if the topic was USMB members and food fights. Accusing a member's post as an effort to start a food fight could indeed be hominem--probably almost always is unless the member admits it. Stating that the members post could start a food fight, however, is not ad hominem. Stating that the member's post started a food fight is not ad hominem.

Unless the member stated that it was his/her intent, stating that a member succeeded in starting a food fight is ad hominem. Even if true. A statement does not have to be true or untrue in order to be ad hominem. In fact it can be quite true and still be ad hominem and inappropriate for a thread in which ad hominem is not allowed.

The surest way to avoid ad hominem is to address the statement as you would address it if you didn't know who made it.

 

[Valerie]

i haven't deleted any of my posts in this thread, and i don't appreciate the implication...

 

[Foxfyre]

i haven't deleted any of my posts in this thread, and i don't appreciate the implication...

Well somebody did. Let's just let it go at that.

 

[Valerie]

i haven't deleted any of my posts in this thread, and i don't appreciate the implication...

Well somebody did. Let's just let it go at that.

all of the posts i have made in this thread are still in this thread.

the irony is you may have got my point, however...

sincere people question YOUR sincerity because you are insulting all-day-long.

sadly, you don't get to demand what others decide to 'let go'.


"While I am cautious about the sincerity of good will based on your earlier posts that you or somebody else deleted"


^

 

[Foxfyre]

Neither are ad hom. The first is no different than saying "you can say that a thousand times and it still won't be true." That is exaggeration for effect, refers to a person's ACTION and not any attribute of the person's personality, character, or anything else about the person personally.

The second statement is an opinion expressed about the post and again refers to an ACTION, and not anything about the person's personality, character, or any other personal attribute. Criticizing a post is not ad hominem unless it includes a personal attribute of the person making it. The "If you can't handle that. . ." line directly referred to the member's comment threatening to leave the thread because his post was criticized.
Antagonistic? Yes. Expressing annoyance? Yes. Ad hominem, no.

Other examples:
'Your statement is racist or your statement is offensive.' Not adhomen.
'You are racist' is ad hominem. 'You hate black people' is ad hominem. 'You don't care if black people are disadvantaged' is ad hominem. 'Republicans can be counted on to say something like that' is ad hominem.

Calling someone a spammer "involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments."

Telling someone they should leave if they don't like being bullied "involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments."

That is YOUR definition, as stated in the OP.

There is a difference between calling somebody a spammer and commenting on or objecting to spamming of a thread.

Telling somebody they should leave if they don't like being bullied may be insensitive and/or rude, but it is in no way ad hominem.

So how is either 'my definition' of ad hominem as stated in the OP?

Objecting to, criticizing, or refuting a person's statement is NOT ad hominem. Making, even by implication, a judgment about the motive, character, personality, intent, background, etc. of the person making the statement IS ad hominem.

That was not convincing in the least.

Sorry. I didn't really expect it to be convincing for everybody. But you didn't refute it did you? Why don't you try to do that?

I refuted your claim that my examples of ad homs were not ad homs. By your own definition, they are ad homs. It was your turn to refute but you were not able to put forth a convincing rebuttal.

You refuted my claim that my examples of ad homs were not ad homs? Really? I missed that. Please refer me to the post where you did that. And refer me to the post in which you refuted my statement that the ad homs here--by the definition in the OP--are not ad homs.

 

[Foxfyre]

i haven't deleted any of my posts in this thread, and i don't appreciate the implication...

Well somebody did. Let's just let it go at that.

all of the posts i have made in this thread are still in this thread.

the irony is you may have got my point, however...

sincere people question YOUR sincerity because you are insulting all-day-long.

sadly, you don't get to demand what others decide to 'let go'.


"While I am cautious about the sincerity of good will based on your earlier posts that you or somebody else deleted"


^

Ah so your point was not sincerity? Is that what you are saying here?

And if all your posts are still in the thread I apologize for saying they are not. I am pretty sure one I reported isn't there but I could have missed it. At any rate it isn't important enough to try to figure it out. I believe the mods sometimes remove rules violation posts from these structured debate threads without comment. At least C_K in his guidelines assured us all that the rules would be enforced.

Even if some are accused of being 'control freaks' because they do try to use the forum as it was intended.

Now then. The topic is ad hominem. Shall we focus on that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your definition, terms of language and reality, were refuted, Foxfyre.

The Board is not an artificial entity where reason, linguistics, and logic are suspended.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your definition, terms of language and reality, were refuted, Foxfyre.

The Board is not an artificial entity where reason, linguistics, and logic are suspended.

Off topic and you cannot show that you have refuted anything Jake.

The Structured Discussion Zone was created strictly so that members could focus a discussion on a particular topic and the author of the thread is given license and some control to direct how the discussion will be conducted. My thread is 100% within those guidelines.

So you can either join the discussion or please find something else to do. But I won't allow diversion to other topics as long as the rules for this zone are enforced. Unless you can show how logic and reason are suspended in the OP, those are not part of this discussion. Whether those can be suspended are not the topics of this discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

On topic and the entire thread is a refutation of your artificial attempt to suspend logic. Yes, the suspension of logical meanings certainly are grounds for topic when you tied them to the what is is of ad hom.

 

[Ravi]

Your definition, terms of language and reality, were refuted, Foxfyre.

The Board is not an artificial entity where reason, linguistics, and logic are suspended.

Off topic and you cannot show that you have refuted anything Jake.

The Structured Discussion Zone was created strictly so that members could focus a discussion on a particular topic and the author of the thread is given license and some control to direct how the discussion will be conducted. My thread is 100% within those guidelines.

So you can either join the discussion or please find something else to do. But I won't allow diversion to other topics as long as the rules for this zone are enforced. Unless you can show how logic and reason are suspended in the OP, those are not part of this discussion. Whether those can be suspended are not the topics of this discussion.

Doesn't mean you get to make up your own definitions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your definition, terms of language and reality, were refuted, Foxfyre.

The Board is not an artificial entity where reason, linguistics, and logic are suspended.

Off topic and you cannot show that you have refuted anything Jake.

The Structured Discussion Zone was created strictly so that members could focus a discussion on a particular topic and the author of the thread is given license and some control to direct how the discussion will be conducted. My thread is 100% within those guidelines.

So you can either join the discussion or please find something else to do. But I won't allow diversion to other topics as long as the rules for this zone are enforced. Unless you can show how logic and reason are suspended in the OP, those are not part of this discussion. Whether those can be suspended are not the topics of this discussion.

Doesn't mean you get to make up your own definitions.

That's exactly what she wants it to mean. She wants definitions according to Foxfyre's subjective understanding of the world.

 

[Coyote]

o 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?


I'm jumping in late here and haven't read the whole thread. But, as stand alone comments, none of the choices in the poll qualify as Ad Homs in my opinion.

I'm not sure I see a real difference between ad hominem and personal insult beyond one of degree rather than definition and sometimes the line is very subtle.

1. Republicans voted against Obamacare.
2. Republicans oppose healthcare.
3. In post #, you opposed federal subsidies for the poor.
4. You don't want to help the poor.
5. Didn't you say you opposed gay marriage?
6. Why do you hate gays?
7. All the Democrats supported that program.
8. Democrats love big government.
9. You didn't make a case for XXX.
10. You lied about XXX.

What I'm seeing in 2, 4, 6, 8 are classic strawman fallacies more than ad homs

One of your sources stated: It is an argumentative flaw that is hard to spot in our daily life. Although, the personal attack that has been made on the opponent might not even have a speck of truth in it, it somehow makes the audience biased. Ironically, despite being flawed, ad hominem has an amazing power of persuasion.

I think 2 and 8 are not ad homs, because they are not aimed at the person making the argument.
4 and 6 could be ad homs.
10 - depends on whether they lied or not.

Interesting distinctions. I guess a distinction could be made that personal insults attack a person and have nothing to do with the argument, while ad homs attack the person as a means of influencing the argument?

 

[Pogo]

o 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?


I'm jumping in late here and haven't read the whole thread. But, as stand alone comments, none of the choices in the poll qualify as Ad Homs in my opinion.

I'm not sure I see a real difference between ad hominem and personal insult beyond one of degree rather than definition and sometimes the line is very subtle.

1. Republicans voted against Obamacare.
2. Republicans oppose healthcare.
3. In post #, you opposed federal subsidies for the poor.
4. You don't want to help the poor.
5. Didn't you say you opposed gay marriage?
6. Why do you hate gays?
7. All the Democrats supported that program.
8. Democrats love big government.
9. You didn't make a case for XXX.
10. You lied about XXX.

What I'm seeing in 2, 4, 6, 8 are classic strawman fallacies more than ad homs

One of your sources stated: It is an argumentative flaw that is hard to spot in our daily life. Although, the personal attack that has been made on the opponent might not even have a speck of truth in it, it somehow makes the audience biased. Ironically, despite being flawed, ad hominem has an amazing power of persuasion.

I think 2 and 8 are not ad homs, because they are not aimed at the person making the argument.
4 and 6 could be ad homs.
10 - depends on whether they lied or not.

Interesting distinctions. I guess a distinction could be made that personal insults attack a person and have nothing to do with the argument, while ad homs attack the person as a means of influencing the argument?

My thoughts exactly Coyote (GMTA and all that). I've never seen a definition of ad hominem as broad as this one. The OP seems to want to call all fallacies there are "ad hominem". Not sure why.

 

[Pogo]

At the risk of further futility I'm just going to take this little piece here as it offers a clear-cut example -- even though it's going to rehash definitions already laid out:

Another example--literary license taken here and not to be taken as a literal post:

X posts: "A balanced budget is the best thing we can do for the middle class."
Y posts: "Of course you would say that. You're a Republican."​

Y's post is clearly ad hominem and makes the subject Republicanism and X is expressing Republican views rather than focusing on the validity of X's statement. Whether or not X is a Republican or whether Republicans endorse it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the statement itself is a valid statement.

Y is clearly NOT ad hominem. To be so, the term "Republican", in and of itself, would have to be a slur.

To actually be ad hominem, one little change is needed, to wit, change the original:

"Of course you would say that. You're a Republican." ...to
"Of course you would say that. You're an idiot."
​

-- see the difference?
In your first example X is concluding that the state of being a Republican is the basis of Y's statement. That may indeed be a valid conclusion (or it may not), but the mere fact that it's phrased in the second person does not make it ad hominem, because it says nothing about Y's character or intelligence. It may be rather a Hasty Generalization fallacy (dependent on the premise that "all Republicans think alike") but it does not blame Y's conclusion on his personal flaws.

The second, rewritten ("idiot") version makes no pretense of delving into Y's conclusion process and instead goes straight to a personal insult. It has no involvement with the actual issue discussed at all. That's what ad hominem is.

 

[Coyote]

o 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?


I'm jumping in late here and haven't read the whole thread. But, as stand alone comments, none of the choices in the poll qualify as Ad Homs in my opinion.

I'm not sure I see a real difference between ad hominem and personal insult beyond one of degree rather than definition and sometimes the line is very subtle.

1. Republicans voted against Obamacare.
2. Republicans oppose healthcare.
3. In post #, you opposed federal subsidies for the poor.
4. You don't want to help the poor.
5. Didn't you say you opposed gay marriage?
6. Why do you hate gays?
7. All the Democrats supported that program.
8. Democrats love big government.
9. You didn't make a case for XXX.
10. You lied about XXX.

What I'm seeing in 2, 4, 6, 8 are classic strawman fallacies more than ad homs

One of your sources stated: It is an argumentative flaw that is hard to spot in our daily life. Although, the personal attack that has been made on the opponent might not even have a speck of truth in it, it somehow makes the audience biased. Ironically, despite being flawed, ad hominem has an amazing power of persuasion.

I think 2 and 8 are not ad homs, because they are not aimed at the person making the argument.
4 and 6 could be ad homs.
10 - depends on whether they lied or not.

Interesting distinctions. I guess a distinction could be made that personal insults attack a person and have nothing to do with the argument, while ad homs attack the person as a means of influencing the argument?

My thoughts exactly Coyote (GMTA and all that). I've never seen a definition of ad hominem as broad as this one. The OP seems to want to call all fallacies there are "ad hominem". Not sure why.

There is a lot of overlap I think and, too - it depends on the context of the argument. I think the key thing is are you attacking the argument or the person in an attempt to influence the argument.

I admit I never thought about the definition of ad hom before nor did I ever differentiate it from personal insults.

 

[Pogo]

o 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?


I'm jumping in late here and haven't read the whole thread. But, as stand alone comments, none of the choices in the poll qualify as Ad Homs in my opinion.

I'm not sure I see a real difference between ad hominem and personal insult beyond one of degree rather than definition and sometimes the line is very subtle.

1. Republicans voted against Obamacare.
2. Republicans oppose healthcare.
3. In post #, you opposed federal subsidies for the poor.
4. You don't want to help the poor.
5. Didn't you say you opposed gay marriage?
6. Why do you hate gays?
7. All the Democrats supported that program.
8. Democrats love big government.
9. You didn't make a case for XXX.
10. You lied about XXX.

What I'm seeing in 2, 4, 6, 8 are classic strawman fallacies more than ad homs

One of your sources stated: It is an argumentative flaw that is hard to spot in our daily life. Although, the personal attack that has been made on the opponent might not even have a speck of truth in it, it somehow makes the audience biased. Ironically, despite being flawed, ad hominem has an amazing power of persuasion.

I think 2 and 8 are not ad homs, because they are not aimed at the person making the argument.
4 and 6 could be ad homs.
10 - depends on whether they lied or not.

Interesting distinctions. I guess a distinction could be made that personal insults attack a person and have nothing to do with the argument, while ad homs attack the person as a means of influencing the argument?

My thoughts exactly Coyote (GMTA and all that). I've never seen a definition of ad hominem as broad as this one. The OP seems to want to call all fallacies there are "ad hominem". Not sure why.

There is a lot of overlap I think and, too - it depends on the context of the argument. I think the key thing is are you attacking the argument or the person in an attempt to influence the argument.

I admit I never thought about the definition of ad hom before nor did I ever differentiate it from personal insults.

Really the only distinction from a personal insult is that ad hom is specifically used (fallaciously) in rhetorical argument, where a personal insult might show up anywhere. Otherwise, sameo-sameo.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There have been at least a dozen posters in this thread who have made the same observation about the OP.

I believe that Lewis Carroll summed up the OP quite succinctly.

The dictionary definition of the term ad hom is generally agreed upon as the valid definition;

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem

[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]

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.​

The definitions provided by the OP sound more like Humpty Dumpty IMO.

Now I have little doubt whatsoever that in the OP's opinion that is an ad hom.

However it cannot be an ad hom under either dictionary definition because this post answers the questions in the OP in a reasoned and intellectual manner.

Yes, the case can be made that likening the OP to Humpty Dumpty's scornful tone could be an attack on her character but that isn't the case when it happens to be true.

Needless to say this post will be reported by the OP even though it is directly on topic, addresses the OP and does not violate the true dictionary definition of the term ad hom.

PS I have taken a copy of this post for the record just in case I need to defend it with CK later.