Posted on 10/23/2008 11:45:17 AM PDT by Gamecock
ad hominem
(Lat. ad, “to” + hominem, “the man”)
In rhetorical argumentation, an ad hominem is a method of argumentation in which a person attacks the character of the opponent(s) instead of dealing with the evidence or the substance of the argument. If someone were to attack the credibility of Reformation appealing to the character of Martin Luther as neurotic and incapable of making valid judgments, this would be an attack on his character in order to discredit his argument and, therefore, an example of an ad hominem.
also: argumentum ad hominem and ad hom for short
TWOTD Ping
The TWOTD Ping list is published daily, except weekends. If you would like on or off of the TWOTD Ping List please FReepmail me.
Fortunately ad homs are rare on the Religion Forum.
Do you want examples of the ad hom attack or does you mother wear combat boots?
Indeed, they are as rare as hen's beaks.
I’ve been dealing with a bunch of liberals on a soap opera newsgroup, and man, are they experts at this!!! Of course, right now their favorite buzz word is RACIST!!! in reaction to ANYTHING you say about Ubama. I’m a racist because I stick the letter U in his name instead of an O. I’m a racist because I’m against socialism taking over the USA. I’m a racist because I want to know why he’s lied about his relationships with unsavory characters like Wright, Rezco, and Ayers. I’m a racist because I’m a conservative/Republican/Christian.
And the list goes on and on. Seriesly, it’s like beating your head against a hugh brick wall sometimes! ;-)
hen sbeak
Cackle, cackle, cackle, clllllllooooo
This thread is clearly a candidate for a hijacking, and we’ve not hijacked in weeks upon weeks and unto the utmost generations, etc.
Ad hominem jokes, anyone?
I think there should be a formula where three strawman will cancel out an ad hominem.
You go first.... jerk.
Who needs a formula, when you've got Irving's Law?
Joe Bidenwas so frustrated at gaffe after gaffe after gaffe, that, in frustration, he went to a brain-transplant center in the hope of getting his brain straightened out.
After a battery of physical and psychological tests, he was told by the center’s director that he was an acceptable candidate.
“That’s great!” Biden said. “But I understand that this procedure can be really expensive.”
“Yes, sir, it can,” the director replied. “An ounce of accountant’s brain for example, costs one thousand dollars; an ounce of an economist’s brain costs two thousand; an ounce of a corporate president’s is forty-five thousand. An ounce of a Democrat’s brain is seventy-five thousand dollars.”
“Seventy-five thousand dollars for an ounce of a Democrat’s brain? Why on earth is that?”
“Do you have any idea,” the director asked, “how many Democrats we would have to kill?”
I know you are nobody’s fool but maybe someone will adopt you.
see #11........____-face
You forgot the ad hominem sub-fallacies.....
Abusive: An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks are often effective distractions (”red herrings”), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.
Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent’s position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: “Of course, that’s what you’d expect him to say.” The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument’s acceptance.
This form of the fallacy needs to be distinguished from criticisms directed at testimony, which are not fallacious, since pointing out that someone stands to gain from testifying a certain way would tend to cast doubt upon that testimony. (e.g. `Bias’: the witness is related to the defendant) For instance, when a celebrity endorses a product, it is usually in return for money, which lowers the evidentiary value of such an endorsement—often to nothing! (ad populum as well)
In contrast, the fact that an arguer may gain in some way from an argument’s acceptance does not affect the evidentiary value of the argument, for arguments can and do stand or fall on their own merits.
as well as:
`Poisoning the Well’, and
ad hominem `tu quoque’ (you as well)
you chowderheads........
Whoever thinks ad hominem is a theological word is a moron.
LOL. We have a winner!
Hey, I’m pretty sure it’s been at least a year since I called someone on here a “snake handler” in response to being called a Romanist.
R-O-M-A-N-I-S-T!!!
:>)
I’m biting my tongue... :-)
Two rednecks decided that they weren’t going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.
The first went in to see the counselor, who told him to take math, history, and logic.
“What’s logic?” the first redneck asked.
The professor answered, “Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?”
“I sure do.”
“Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard,” replied the professor.
“That’s real good!” said the redneck.
The professor continued, “Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house.”
Impressed, the redneck said, “Amazing!”
“And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife.”
“That’s Betty Mae! This is incredible!”
The redneck was catching on.
“Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual,” said the professor.
“You’re absolutely right! Why that’s the most fascinatin’ thing I ever heard! I cain’t wait to take that logic class!”
The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walked back into the hallway where his friend was still waiting.
“So what classes are ya takin’?” asked the friend.
“Math, history, and logic!” replied the first redneck.
“What in tarnation is logic?” asked his friend.
“Let me give you an example. Do ya own a weed eater?” asked the first redneck.
“No,” his friend replied.
“You’re queer, ain’t ya?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.