• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A primer on Ad Hominem

Galactic Spin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2022
Messages
26,772
Reaction score
20,423
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Good morning, all. It has been shown to me, in a couple months on this board, that quite a few people here do not understand what "Ad Hominem" is.

Putting aside semantic wrangling using varying "dictionary" definitions from multiple sources, let's discuss and make it clear what the main thrust and spirit of Ad Hominem actually is.

This is Ad Hominem:

If someone were to make a formal argument, with clearly stated premises and logical operations on those premises...

.. and another person responds only by saying the argument is poopie, because the person who made it is a poopiehead...

THAT is Ad Hominem.

NOT Ad Hominem:

A person merely states a sweeping, unargued opinion of something (a movie, a book, the January 6th hearings, etc)...

...then another person points out the opinion is worthless, because the person stating the opinion has never actually watched the movie, read the book, or watched the hearings...

...that is NOT Ad Hominem. That is a perfectly valid attack to undermine a totally uninformed opinion.

Imagine the absurdity of this mistaken claim of Ad Hominem, in another setting:

Ebert: "This movie is trash, start to finish."

Siskel: "But your opinion is worthless, as you didn't actually watch the movie."

Ebert: " Ad hominem! Ad hominem! You big meanie!"
 
Last edited:
Imagine the absurdity of this mistaken claim of Ad Hominem, in another setting:

Ebert: "This movie is trash, start to finish."

Siskel: "But your opinion is worthless, as you didn't actually watch the movie."

Ebert: " Ad hominem! Ad hominem! You big meanie!"

The claim is "the movie is trash".

Whether Ebert actually watched the movie is irrelevant regarding whether the claim is true.

For example, I have never watched Jurassic Shark, but I'm pretty sure it's trash.
 
Whether Ebert actually watched the movie is irrelevant regarding whether the claim is true.
Such a claim cannot be "true". Only "believed". It is an opinion based on taste.

And yes, it is valid (not specious, as required by Ad Hominem) to say the opinion is worthless, considering the person asserting it is completely ignorant of the material on which they are opining.

It's like a toddler saying they hate green beans, when they have not tried green beans.
 
Good morning, all. It has been shown to me, in a couple months on this board, that quite a few people here do not understand what "Ad Hominem" is.

Putting aside semantic wrangling using varying "dictionary" definitions from multiple sources, let's discuss and make it clear what the main thrust and spirit of Ad Hominem actually is.

This is Ad Hominem:

If someone were to make a formal argument, with clearly stated premises and logical operations on those premises...

.. and another person responds only by saying the argument is poopie, because the person who made it is a poopiehead...

THAT is Ad Hominem.

NOT Ad Hominem:

A person merely states a sweeping, unargued opinion of something (a movie, a book, the January 6th hearings, etc)...

...then another person points out the opinion is worthless, because the person stating the opinion has never actually watched the movie, read the book, or watched the hearings...

...that is NOT Ad Hominem. That is a perfectly valid attack to undermine a totally uninformed opinion.

Imagine the absurdity of this mistaken claim of Ad Hominem, in another setting:

Ebert: "This movie is trash, start to finish."

Siskel: "But your opinion is worthless, as you didn't actually watch the movie."

Ebert: " Ad hominem! Ad hominem! You big meanie!"
How about .. oh ... "John Fetterman is unqualified to be a US Senator because he needs to read a teleprompter since he can't understand spoken words and he even seems to have trouble reading the written words"?
Can it be ad hominem if support for the claim is acknowledged to be accurate?
Does that violate the Ad Bidenem, excuse me, Ad Hominem thrust and spirit?
 
How about .. oh ... "John Fetterman is unqualified to be a US Senator because he needs to read a teleprompter since he can't understand spoken words and he even seems to have trouble reading the written words"?
Can it be ad hominem if support for the claim is acknowledged to be accurate?
Does that violate the Ad Bidenem, excuse me, Ad Hominem thrust and spirit?
I would say that is not ad hominem, and that the truth of your premises would be the focus of debate.

Specifically, the claims that he cannot read a teleprompter, the implications that this state will last for some, most, or all of his term in office, and the claim that being able to read a teleprompter is a necessary prerequisite for holding or running for office.
 
I would say that is not ad hominem, and that the truth of your premises would be the focus of debate.

Specifically, the claims that he cannot read a teleprompter, the implications that this state will last for some, most, or all of his term in office, and the claim that being able to read a teleprompter is a necessary prerequisite for holding or running for office.
No No.
Fetterman requested a TP because he has trouble understanding the spoken word.
Should someone be elected to the US Senate, H of R, or Presidency if he/she has trouble understanding spoken words?
 
No No.
Fetterman requested a TP because he has trouble understanding the spoken word.
Should someone be elected to the US Senate, H of R, or Presidency if he/she has trouble understanding spoken words?
Again, asserting yes or no would be the conclusion of the argument you would make. This would not be ad hominem, on your part.

Then, the debate around your argument and conclusion would focus on the truth of your premises.

Anyone can use valid logic to argue anything at all. I assume you would use valid logic in your argument.
 
Mabe an example would help:

Valid argument:

P) All natural satellites of planets are made of green cheese
P) The earth has a natural satellite named "The Moon"

C) Therefore, The Moon is made of green cheese

Ad hominem: This conclusion is stupid, because the argument was made by a stupid person.

NOT Ad Hominem: This argument is unsound and the conclusion is worthless, because not all natural satellites are made of green cheese. And here is how we know this... .... .... ...
 
Last edited:
To elucidate further:

One merely asserts that no extraterrestrial lifeforms exist.

Another person points out that such a claim is worthless, as the person making it could not have surveyed or sourced a survey of all bodies in the universe.

Not ad hominem.
 
The claim is "the movie is trash".

Whether Ebert actually watched the movie is irrelevant regarding whether the claim is true.

For example, I have never watched Jurassic Shark, but I'm pretty sure it's trash.


One extremely closed mind. The value of that opinion rests on whether the recipient knows your tastes.

But you have to recognize that the statement has no real value. It is one opinion backed by not having seen the film. Sorry, but the entire Franchise was ****ing Awesome.

That's 'conflicting opinions", one of them totally invalid.
 
One extremely closed mind. The value of that opinion rests on whether the recipient knows your tastes.
The value of that opinion first rests on whether or not the person uttering it is knowledgeable about the material on which they are opining.

If a 5 year old who just learned to read yesterday told you the entire canon of 17th century french poetry was pedantic and stupid, would you respond merely with, "Tastes vary"?

Maybe outwardly, as nobody wants a crying 5 year old on their hands. But inwardly? You would admit to yourself that his opinion is worthless. Because you know the 5 year old has not read a single word of 17th century French poetry. And that would not be ad hominem.

Well, these aren't 5 year olds on this board. No need to powder their butts. ;)
 
Last edited:
One extremely closed mind. The value of that opinion rests on whether the recipient knows your tastes.

But you have to recognize that the statement has no real value. It is one opinion backed by not having seen the film. Sorry, but the entire Franchise was ****ing Awesome.

That's 'conflicting opinions", one of them totally invalid.

Shark, not Park.

 
Shark, not Park.


Now ask yourself if you would watch that YouTube video, if it was just 10 minutes of someone saying they never watched any of the movie, but it definitely sucks. No clips presented, no facts about the movie presented, because the host admittedly never watched a single second of the movie.

You wouldn't. We both know exactly why.
 
Should someone be elected to the US Senate, H of R, or Presidency if he/she has trouble understanding spoken words?
Donald Trump.
 
The claim is "the movie is trash".

Whether Ebert actually watched the movie is irrelevant regarding whether the claim is true.

For example, I have never watched Jurassic Shark, but I'm pretty sure it's trash.
However you're missing out on a hilariously if accidentally humorous gem destined to become a cult classic. The movie is not trash, and your opinion is indeed meaningless because you never bothered to watch it.
 
However you're missing out on a hilariously if accidentally humorous gem destined to become a cult classic. The movie is not trash, and your opinion is indeed meaningless because you never bothered to watch it.


I'd never heard of it, but will have seen it by tomorrow. I love old trashy movies, the original "The Thing" with Steve McQueen was technically a horrible film...I loved it because it was horrible and proved my contention that Steve McQueen was a lousy actor.

Regardless whether a film is bad or good, first run or "Crappie oldie", giving an opinion without having seen it is about the stupidest things a person can do. The furthest I would go would be "no, haven't seen it, but I hate Steve McQueen."

But this thread demonstrates just how much that thnking: "I don't have to have had the experiance to have an opinion". That is the height of arrogance.
 
However you're missing out on a hilariously if accidentally humorous gem destined to become a cult classic. The movie is not trash, and your opinion is indeed meaningless because you never bothered to watch it.
Yes, it does belong in the cult classics of films so bad they are funny. Films like Plan 9 From Outer Space for example, you end up watching them just to see how bad they can get.
 
Okay, but this type of posting is not really allowed in The Loft (see guidelines). That's why I posted this thread here.
Ah. I didn't even know I was in The Loft. Can you say what you mean by "this type of posting"?
 
Good morning, all. It has been shown to me, in a couple months on this board, that quite a few people here do not understand what "Ad Hominem" is.

Putting aside semantic wrangling using varying "dictionary" definitions from multiple sources, let's discuss and make it clear what the main thrust and spirit of Ad Hominem actually is.

This is Ad Hominem:

If someone were to make a formal argument, with clearly stated premises and logical operations on those premises...

.. and another person responds only by saying the argument is poopie, because the person who made it is a poopiehead...

THAT is Ad Hominem.

NOT Ad Hominem:

A person merely states a sweeping, unargued opinion of something (a movie, a book, the January 6th hearings, etc)...

...then another person points out the opinion is worthless, because the person stating the opinion has never actually watched the movie, read the book, or watched the hearings...

...that is NOT Ad Hominem. That is a perfectly valid attack to undermine a totally uninformed opinion.

Imagine the absurdity of this mistaken claim of Ad Hominem, in another setting:

Ebert: "This movie is trash, start to finish."

Siskel: "But your opinion is worthless, as you didn't actually watch the movie."

Ebert: " Ad hominem! Ad hominem! You big meanie!"
Your post is stupid because you are stupid!


(Just kidding)
 
Ah. I didn't even know I was in The Loft. Can you say what you mean by "this type of posting"?
- Short “One liner” posts used to troll or derail are frowned upon.
We understand humor is inherent in discussions, and it is not against the rules here. However one liners that are just being petulant or trolling for a reaction that would perhaps be ignored in the regular forum could result in action here.
 
- Short “One liner” posts used to troll or derail are frowned upon.
We understand humor is inherent in discussions, and it is not against the rules here. However one liners that are just being petulant or trolling for a reaction that would perhaps be ignored in the regular forum could result in action here.
OK. I wouldn't characterize my message like that (I don't know that I've ever written a petulant or trolling message), but it's not a big deal. It's your thread, so if you found it disruptive, I'll honor that.
 
I'd never heard of it, but will have seen it by tomorrow. I love old trashy movies, the original "The Thing" with Steve McQueen was technically a horrible film...I loved it because it was horrible and proved my contention that Steve McQueen was a lousy actor.

Regardless whether a film is bad or good, first run or "Crappie oldie", giving an opinion without having seen it is about the stupidest things a person can do. The furthest I would go would be "no, haven't seen it, but I hate Steve McQueen."

But this thread demonstrates just how much that thnking: "I don't have to have had the experiance to have an opinion". That is the height of arrogance.
If you like that stuff have you seen "rubber"?
 
Back
Top Bottom