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

[Ravi]

help me out here..i was never the best at defining and labeling these debate term concepts...


IF

someone goes on and on and on about a law, yet many still disagree on the crux of the matter...

THEN

that certain someone responds:

"Again if some of the numbnuts would just read the law instead of parroting what their leftist sources say about the law, they might actually get it. But then again probably not."



What do you call THAT? ^


link: [URL="http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/11056071/"]Will Republicans ever learn? Indiana governor to sign bill allowing business not to serve gays[/URL]

No, dear. Numbnuts is just a term of endearment. Not an attack on anyone. Certainly not a personal attack on leftists

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to return to this paragraph from Pogo's Post #60 because in further review I think I did not give it proper attention.

He said:

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. . . .​

This is the one that prompted my question about 'why is it necessary. . .' to which you objected. Does not the bolded portion suggest that you are saying that the source of the adversary's position is a necessary bridge to a conclusion? If I am misinterpreting your intent with that, please point out what you did mean.

But again, what does the origin of my position have to do with whether a statement itself is accurate or inaccurate? Reasonable or unreasonable? Valid or invalid?

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

help me out here..i was never the best at defining and labeling these debate term concepts...


IF

someone goes on and on and on about a law, yet many still disagree on the crux of the matter...

THEN

that certain someone responds:

"Again if some of the numbnuts would just read the law instead of parroting what their leftist sources say about the law, they might actually get it. But then again probably not."



What do you call THAT? ^


link: Will Republicans ever learn? Indiana governor to sign bill allowing business not to serve gays

That would be an insulting statement intended to label and put down people who are misstating a law. It is referring to a specific action of the people being discussed and does not refer to their character or motives for doing it. Less than charitable. Yes. Unkind? Yes. Reflects poorly on the person making the statement who in a state of less frustration might choose not to make that statement. Yes. Ad hominem? No.

 

[Valerie]

what about if i were to call you a control freak, would that be an ad hom..?

 

[Ravi]

what about if i were to call you a control freak, would that be an ad hom..?

Not when true.

 

[Foxfyre]

what about if i were to call you a control freak, would that be an ad hom..?

No. That would be a personal insult. It would violate the rules for the thread and if intended to insult, whether directed at me or any other member, I would report it immediately.

 

[Foxfyre]

what about if i were to call you a control freak, would that be an ad hom..?

Not when true.

Yes. Even if it was true it would violate the rules of the thread and it would be reported.

 

[Valerie]

just trying to understand how to operate on your own terms, dear...

 

[Ravi]

Here are two recent ad hom attacks I've seen in this forum:

"You can spam 50 pages with endless posts copied and pasted from other sources"

"You made a silly statement about the IRS and SSA and got called on it. And if you can't handle that then leaving the thread is probably the best choice to make."

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let's drag the train back onto the tracks here folks:

Here again is the thread topic:

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? Why or why not?​

Disclaimer: I added the 'why or why not' to the above topic and it does not appear in the OP but I wish I had included it.

Since my personal answers to the questions are 'yes', 'yes' and 'no' is why I offered this topic for discussion.

I think most people who read this thread objectively would agree that there have already been posts that focus on the person who made the post instead of focusing on the post itself. Some appear to be personal insults carefully worded to avoid moderator action. Some posts have either been deleted by moderator action or deleted by the member(s) making those posts. And I could have missed one or two, but I believe all the members making such posts so far have not agreed to the definition of ad hominem offered in the OP. Nor has anyone seriously attempted to rebut that definition as posted and linked but some have objected to it without being specific as to how their complaint is valid.

I think most people who read this thread objectively would see posts that disrupt the discussion and add nothing to it.

And I am pretty sure a lot of people still don't understand what ad hominem actually is and/or how it differs from personal insult.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here are two recent ad hom attacks I've seen in this forum:

"You can spam 50 pages with endless posts copied and pasted from other sources"

"You made a silly statement about the IRS and SSA and got called on it. And if you can't handle that then leaving the thread is probably the best choice to make."

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. Calling somebody a spammer is a personal insult. Objecting to spamming of a thread is neither personal insult or ad hominem.

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.

 

[Ravi]

Here are two recent ad hom attacks I've seen in this forum:

"You can spam 50 pages with endless posts copied and pasted from other sources"

"You made a silly statement about the IRS and SSA and got called on it. And if you can't handle that then leaving the thread is probably the best choice to make."

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

just trying to understand how to operate on your own terms, dear...

Just read and understand the OP and the rules for discussion and limit your comments to the thread topic as much as possible and you'll do just fine, dear.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here are two recent ad hom attacks I've seen in this forum:

"You can spam 50 pages with endless posts copied and pasted from other sources"

"You made a silly statement about the IRS and SSA and got called on it. And if you can't handle that then leaving the thread is probably the best choice to make."

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?

 

[Ravi]

Here are two recent ad hom attacks I've seen in this forum:

"You can spam 50 pages with endless posts copied and pasted from other sources"

"You made a silly statement about the IRS and SSA and got called on it. And if you can't handle that then leaving the thread is probably the best choice to make."

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.

 

[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

So make your case for why this definition is any different from or better than the expanded definition and explanation of ad hominem included in the OP.

Because it is traditional and accepted. You will find that almost all dictionaries of ad hom meet those standards.

That isn't what I asked. Make your case for why this definition is different from or better than the expanded definition and explanation of ad hominem included in the OP.

I answered clearly: it is traditional and accepted.

You have to show why your altered definition is better. This is your OP, so the burden of proof is yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

what about if i were to call you a control freak, would that be an ad hom..?

Not when true.

Yes. Even if it was true it would violate the rules of the thread and it would be reported.

Thank you for finally giving clear evidence you want a thread under your control and direction where you cannot be contradicted. Thank you.

 

[Valerie]

Just read and understand the OP and the rules for discussion and limit your comments to the thread topic as much as possible and you'll do just fine, dear.

when you tell others what they don't understand, is that an ad hom or merely an insult..? FTR

 

[Foxfyre]

So, returning to the thread topic and selecting another of Pogo's earlier comments that I think I didn't give adequate attention to:

From his Post #53:

. . . .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. . . .​

When I teach ad hominem, 'poisoning the well' is absolutely one form of ad hominem. It is difficult to find examples of it that are not ad hominem. It is an intentional effort to call a person's character or weaknesses or biases or motives or whatever into question as the means of discrediting his/her statement. Mischaracterizing or drawing unfounded assumptions about a person's statement is another way to do that.

And I can't see how you can say commenting on a persons motives is not a statement on a person's character. What drives anybody's motives other than their character?

And as for every argument dynamic having a motive, that may be true. However, the motive has absolutely nothing to do with whether the argument itself is or is not a valid argument. So to divert from the argument to the motive of the person making the argument is ad hominem.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just read and understand the OP and the rules for discussion and limit your comments to the thread topic as much as possible and you'll do just fine, dear.

when you tell others what they don't understand, is that an ad hom or merely an insult..? FTR

It could just be fact based on their erroneous statement but in some cases, depending on how it is used, it could be ad hominem. However, instructing or asking somebody to understand is not ad hominem.