The Ad Hominem Fallacy

zoobyshoe

People ought to read what this actually consists of, because I've noticed people mistaking mere insults for Ad Hominems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Calling someone an insulting or abusive name is not an Ad Hominem. Generally, an Ad Hominem is an attempt to discredit someone based on something about them that is actually unrelated to the issue at hand. These are Ad Hominems:

"Joe's political views are meaningless: he's an alcoholic."

"Don't let Sam correct your grammar, he believes in Ancient Aliens."

"It figures Thelma got sexually assaulted: she's been divorced twice and never goes to church."



These following are not Ad Hominems, just insults:

"Frank is a moron, and ugly on top of it."

"She is nuts."

"Edna is an ignorant hack."

"You'd have to be crazy not to like Ed Smith."

Therefore:

"You don't vote Republican? You're an idiot!!"

Is not an Ad Hominem, just an insult. It might take place during the course of an argument, but it is not, itself, an argument of any sort.

256bits

So when not completely sure of an insult, or a witty retort back, someone will say " I think I just got insulted! ".
With an Ad Hominem can one say " I think I just got Ad Hominemized !"

Andre

Interesting that you start this thread Zooby, It's one of the roots of my enemy thread. Exactly that.

zoobyshoe

I don't exactly follow. I was actually prompted by seeing someone in another forum misinterpret an insult (a pretty mild one, if it was one at all) as an Ad Hominem.

D H

And another: "Ignore zooby's analysis of ad homs. Just one look at his avatar and you know he has to be wrong."

Andre

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...71#post3913571

zoobyshoe

How about this: "You're just jealous because I know how to spell out my full name." Ad Hominem?

D H

That is just an insult; your argument in the opening post is correct. Had you used my incomplete spelling as a reason for dismissing my claim, then that would have been an ad hominem attack.

Jimmy Snyder

I try to avoid using Ad Hominem attacks. I might point out that Zoobyshoe is a stupid, ugly, fat, ignorant slob. But I would never give that as the reason that he is always wrong.

D H

Whether zoobyshoe is ugly or fat is irrelevant to the correctness / incorrectness of his posts. That is what would make the use of these terms an ad hominem attack.

zoobyshoe

Very good. Likewise, I would never allude to the fact you both are impossibly hideous, near-reptilian monstrosities, to explain why your utterances are invariably nonsensical and incoherent. It would be an Ad Hominem to do so, because the former has nothing to do with the latter.

russ_watters

I disagree with this zoob - often the other half is just left insaid, for the reader to fill in.

Andre

I guess, it doesn't need to be said that this thread is all about apophasis.

Dickfore

So, in your example, if you use your insult to refute their statement, it is a logical fallacy (ad hom.), but if you deduce an insult from their statement (eg. you do not support Republicans, ergo you're an idiot.), then it is not a fallacious argument?!

Call it what you want, but I still think the latter is fallacious argument. Maybe a non sequitur, but still fallacy.

russ_watters

Hairsplitting?

Pythagorean

ad hominem is just a nonsequitor. We make a new category for it just because it's a special case of nonsequitor that hurts our feelings. Also, probably because it's a strong appeal to social emotion, so it can be more effective so we single it out?


What's the difference between an "informal fallacy" and a "nonsequitor"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

Pythagorean

hrm, interestingly, according to wiki, an ad hominem is considered an informal fallacy and nonsequitor is considered a formal fallacy.