Posted on 03/18/2002 8:12:30 AM PST by Brookhaven
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:
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).
Therefore, the millions in bribes paid by Enron to little Dumbya and untold dozens of other Repuke politicians are totally irrelevant.
My Latin is obviously horrible. I'm reading. This point divides us like iron and fire. If the leader speaks like a woman he is a woman.
I presume you have at least some evidence of bribes paid to someone other than a Clinton or one of his associates and/or functionaries. It is interesting to note that the Enron chairman stayed at the white House during the Clinton administration. Besides aren't you one of the ones who says contibutions from the PRC do not matter unless one can absolutely prove that specific favors were granted only because of the contributions to a political campaign.
Or were you just giving us an example of an illogical untrue attack to highlight how really lame it is?
LOL, this from the Master of Shilling. If you were unable to use every one of Sabertooth's list of debate fallacies (Ad hominem, Straw Man, Begging the Question, the False Dilemma, and the Appeal to Authority) the only place on FR you would be able to post is the "Day in the Life of President Bush" thread.
After all, then nobody would ever question anything YOU say.
I'll take Door Number 2, Monty.
You got that right Saber. Here are just a few examples from this thread, Bush says he won't legalize immigrants
"Congress took a page right out of Al Capones book. . ."
"Bush speaks with forked tongue."
"Bush is fast becoming a bigger joke than Clintoon."
"It would seem to me a bad idea to have criminals (ilegal immigrants) handling and preparing our food."
"Bush wants open borders."
"We are going to be flooded by millions of Illegals."
"Illegals are burglars, would you let a criminal to serve you food?"
"You're a typical Bush-bot. You know you can't defend the indefensible, so you resort to mindless name-calling and personal attacks... No wonder it's so easy for a pandering politician, like Bush, to make a sucker out of fools, like you."
"Bush is a traitor, he sold us out." (even though Bush hasn't done anything on this issue yet)
"Bush is a 'Judas goat'."
"The POLLS say 80 (or 90%) of the people don't want this."
"And when your doctor is giving you a prostate exam and you suddenly notice that both his hands are on your shoulders, then that's bound to be his finger in your butt because he says so, right?"
"I'm taking a chance replying to you because you appear to be an imbecile."
; ]
1.I presume you have at least some evidence of bribes paid to someone other than a Clinton or one of his associates and/or functionaries. (IOW, MurryMom is stupid to believe the millions in campaign contributions paid to Dumbya and his fellow Repukes influenced their pro-Enron stands on energy policy. Dumbya hasn't admitted they are bribes, has he?)
Therefore, Dumbya didn't take any bribes.
2. It is interesting to note that the Enron chairman stayed at the white House during the Clinton administration.
Everybody does it. Therefore, the Repukes aren't guilty of anything.
Besides aren't you one of the ones who says contibutions from the PRC do not matter unless one can absolutely prove that specific favors were granted only because of the contributions to a political campaign.
A quid pro quo needs to be proved when a Repuke politician is accused of taking bribes. Because Clinton was photographed at the WH with Chicoms, we know he's guilty!
Hey, watch your language!
This issue arises in all intellectual fields, but the one I am most familiar with, is college remediation. I have frequently been confronted with people who have never taught remedial courses, or even researched remediation, making like authorities, because they have some political power or academic authority derived from another field. I see no logical or moral problem with attacking such a person based on my personal knowledge, that he LACKS the knowledge to back up his claims. Call it the argument from lack of authority.
Oh yeah? What do you know about argument?!
;^)
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.