Fallacy: Ad Hominem

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html ^

[Brookhaven]

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

[Brookhaven]

I thought an occasional posting of a fallacy would help people brush up their debating skills, and help people spot them when they see them.

Any examples?

[lady lawyer]

Mark Furhman said the N-word, therefore OJ is not guilty.

Kenneth Starr is obsessed with sex, therefore Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.

[lentulusgracchus]

Bold Fenian and Lady Lawyer both know how to frame ad hominem arguments. Therefore we can't trust Irishmen or lawyers.

[Melas]

Great idea, but why stop with ad hominem? In debate, I find that the tu quoque, argumentum ad vericundium and ergo hoc post propter hoc are the real killers.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I like Ad-hominem attacks. For instance, when we see a news article like this: Bush is a civil rights buster, he hates blah blah.... Then you find out the person who wrote the article worked for the Civil Rights Academy, and publishes in left wing magazines, lectured about it. Ad-hominem attacks, at least to me, are relevant.

[Brookhaven]

Great idea, but why stop with ad hominem?

I was thinking of posting a different one every few days. I thought it would sink in better that way.

Given the way politicians use (or abuse) language to get their point across, everyone needs to have a basic understanding of logic and fallacies if they don't want to be lead around like sheep.

[HIDEK6]

Sorry. This one is, "Undistributed middle."

[mrsmith]

No, the only possible choice is between name-calling and false dichotomies!

[the]

Here's a thread that I keep around for similar reasons. Comment #4 is entitled The Logic of Inquiry: Rhetorical Devices.

The first post of the same thread is "Propaganda Techniques".

Both are very useful refreshers.

[Sabertooth]

Great thread.

Ad hominem is the fallacy I see most, followed by the Straw Man, Begging the Question, the False Dilemma, and the Appeal to Authority.

[Howlin]

Well, you seem to have mastered bloviating.

[eastsider]

Did you see Ice Age this weekend? : )

[harpseal]

What else would one expect someone with oversized incisors to say?:^)

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Brookhaven]

Then you find out the person who wrote the article worked for the Civil Rights Academy, and publishes in left wing magazines, lectured about it. Ad-hominem attacks, at least to me, are relevant.

That should influence you to take what they say with a grain of salt and verify the facts, that doesn't mean they are wrong.

Example:

grlfrnd: The Clinton administation could have prevented the 9-11 attacks by reacting more stongly to the terrorist attacks during his administration.

Ad Hominem Attack: grlfrnd is a member of Free Republic which is just a bunch of Clinton haters, so Clinton couldn't have done anything to prevent the 9-11 attacks.

Does that mean that grlfrnd is wrong about Clinton? No, it may indicate you are biased one way or another, but it doesn't mean the actual statement you made is true one way or another.

[Sir Gawain]

From the link:

Least of Evils: This is a technique of acknowledging that the course of action being taken is perhaps undesirable but that any alternative would result in an outcome far worse. This technique is generally used to explain the need for sacrifices or to justify the seemingly harsh actions that displease the target audience or restrict personal liberties. Projecting blame on the enemy for the unpleasant or restrictive conditions is usually coupled with this technique.

[conserve-it]

Based on the above referenced definition, the Democratic Party, in keeping with logic, should be renamed the Ad Hominem Party.

[krb]

Any examples?

This one is a toughy, probably an Ad Hominem Gray Area:

David Duke used to be in the KKK, so anything he proffers regarding Jewish people, black people, or Israel must be wrong.

[Sabertooth]

Well, you seem to have mastered bloviating.

If you say so.

Would you like to address any of the issues I've raised with you this morning, back on their appropriate threads, or are we done?

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Okay. I see your point. But I don't argue on *points* very well....I think I'm an *emotional* arguer. I don't know how to attack *back* on point after point. Maybe I can learn though?