Skip to comments.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html ^
Posted on 03/18/2002 8:12:30 AM PST by Brookhaven
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
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?
To: Brookhaven
Mark Furhman said the N-word, therefore OJ is not guilty.
Kenneth Starr is obsessed with sex, therefore Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: Bold Fenian
Bold Fenian and Lady Lawyer both know how to frame ad hominem arguments. Therefore we can't trust Irishmen or lawyers.
To: Brookhaven
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.
5
posted on
03/18/2002 8:54:16 AM PST
by
Melas
To: Brookhaven
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.
To: Melas
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.
To: lentulusgracchus
Sorry. This one is, "Undistributed middle."
8
posted on
03/18/2002 9:02:24 AM PST
by
HIDEK6
To: Melas
No, the only possible choice is between name-calling and false dichotomies!
9
posted on
03/18/2002 9:05:06 AM PST
by
mrsmith
To: Brookhaven
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.
10
posted on
03/18/2002 9:06:14 AM PST
by
the
To: Brookhaven;
CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; one_particular_harbour...
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.
![](http://members.shaw.ca/sansibar/Sabertooth.jpg)
To: Sabertooth
Well, you seem to have mastered bloviating.
12
posted on
03/18/2002 9:13:45 AM PST
by
Howlin
To: Sabertooth
Did you see Ice Age this weekend? : )
To: Sabertooth
What else would one expect someone with oversized incisors to say?:^)
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
14
posted on
03/18/2002 9:18:14 AM PST
by
harpseal
To: grlfrnd
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.
To: the; aaabest;
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.
To: Brookhaven
Based on the above referenced definition, the Democratic Party, in keeping with logic, should be renamed the Ad Hominem Party.
To: Brookhaven
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.
18
posted on
03/18/2002 9:23:25 AM PST
by
krb
To: Howlin
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?
![](http://members.shaw.ca/sansibar/Sabertooth.jpg)
To: Brookhaven
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?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson