“[T]he folks who are most bothered by the infidelity of others are those who are stuck in miserable marriages and who feel self righteously that everyone should stick it out in a miserable marriage as well.”
Are you saying Rick Santorum is NOT one of “these folks”? Even if you’re not making this connection, “the folks who” is sufficient for proving both cases of ad hominem.
“The connection between the abusive and the circumstantial varieties of argumentum ad hominem is not difficult to see. The circumstatial variety may even be regarded as a special case of the abusive. The first use of the circumstantial charges people who dispute your conclusion with inconsistency, either among their beliefs or between their preaching and their practice, which may be regarded as a kind of reproach or abuse. The second use of the circumstantial charges one’s adversaries with being so prejudiced that their alleged reasons are mere rationalizations of conclusions dictated by self-interest. And that is certainly to abuse them . . . sometimes called “poisoning the well.”
Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1986.
You totally missed the use of illustrative analogy and you also read abuse into a potential observation that surely does not rise to the level of abuse.
You also disregarded my “evidence” - which while was somewhat anecdotal, does speak to a truth that can be and has been backed up by more scientific research.
And then there’s the notion that the definition you used for Ad Hominem is the accepted definition in today’s parlance. I do not.
Oh for 4.