• 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

bubbabgone said:
The argument is about the effect of Fetterman's health problems on his campaign. The comment was implicitly relevant to that.
The point is that what might appear to be an ad hominem attack can be a support for an argument.
Click to expand...
Is Fetterman the interlocutor in this argument? If not, then it's not an Ad Hominum.
 
Bubber said:
Is Fetterman the interlocutor in this argument? If not, then it's not an Ad Hominum.
Click to expand...
I am the interlocutor who is present. The other doesn't have to be present for them to have been the victim of an ad hominem attack (which it wasn't anyway).
 
bubbabgone said:
The argument is about the effect of Fetterman's health problems on his campaign. The comment was implicitly relevant to that.
The point is that what might appear to be an ad hominem attack can be a support for an argument.
Click to expand...
Yes, agreed. A point from the OP, in fact, with the definition of "insult" being very loose.

Now, if Fetterman would make a valid argument for a policy, and your only response is "that fool has problems with the spoken word (so his argument can be ignored)... "

...then THAT would be ad hominem.
 
bubbabgone said:
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?
Click to expand...
Should someone be allowed to post on DP if they can't understand written words?
 
Galactic Spin said:
Okay, but this type of posting is not really allowed in The Loft (see guidelines). That's why I posted this thread here.
Click to expand...
How quickly they forget.

I think a broader thread on logical fallacies could be educational. Unfortunately, as here those most in need of élucidation will either not appear or not understand.
 
NWRatCon said:
How quickly they forget.

I think a broader thread on logical fallacies could be educational. Unfortunately, as here those most in need of élucidation will either not appear or not understand.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Specifically, over generalization and the Inverse Error.
 
It is clear that there are number of posters on DP, some represented in this thread, who are uninformed, idiotic and can't reason to the end of a sentence. It is only ad hominem to call them that as a response to an assertion. Thus:
"You are uninformed, idiotic and can't reason to the end of a sentence" is, definitionally, an ad hominem response, but
"Your opinion is uninformed, and idiotic and displays the inability to reason to the end of a sentence" is, technically, not ad hominem because it is a description of the argument, not the arguer.

Bubber said:
Is Fetterman the interlocutor in this argument? If not, then it's not an Ad Hominum.
Click to expand...
It's actually a little subtler than that. For example, people make ad hominem arguments about sources all the time. "Well, it's from the New York Times, so it's obviously bullshit" is an ad hominem argument about the NYT, having nothing to do with the merit of the substance. But, I think for purposes of this discussion, your point is valid.

The rule in the forums is "Personal attacks", which is English for ad hominem (against the person), is "also considered [a violation] of this rule."
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
It is clear that there are number of posters on DP, some represented in this thread, who are uninformed, idiotic and can't reason to the end of a sentence. It is only ad hominem to call them that as a response to an assertion. Thus:
"You are uninformed, idiotic and can't reason to the end of a sentence" is, definitionally, an ad hominem response, but
"Your opinion is uninformed, and idiotic and displays the inability to reason to the end of a sentence" is, technically, not ad hominem because it is a description of the argument, not the arguer.
Click to expand...
How about: "I am NOT saying that you are stupid. I'm only saying that every word, phrase and message you have ever posted to this forum have been stupid words, phrases and messages!"

I dunno. As with everything in life, I think we can sometimes go too far in our efforts at clean classification.

But I don't even believe in liberals and conservatives as distinct objects, so....
 
AmbiguousGuy said:
How about: "I am NOT saying that you are stupid. I'm only saying that every word, phrase and message you have ever posted to this forum have been stupid words, phrases and messages!"

I dunno. As with everything in life, I think we can sometimes go too far in our efforts at clean classification.

But I don't even believe in liberals and conservatives as distinct objects, so....
Click to expand...
I was modifying my post as you responded, but your point is well-taken.

I have asked the question in threads before, "if someone repeatedly post things that are deliberately and definitely untruthful, does that make them a liat?" The answer is "yes", but you can't call them that in the thread.
 
NWRatCon said:
I have asked the question in threads before, "if someone repeatedly post things that are deliberately and definitely untruthful, does that make them a liat?" The answer is "yes", but you can't call them that in the thread.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's nastier to use the nouns. We can still say it, but in a gentler way and without such direct insult.
 
Sabre said:
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.
Click to expand...


A whopper. Keeps you laughing because they took themselves so seriously.

One that doesn't is "They Live"

"Zardoz"with Sean Connery. His worst movie. And you cannot die without seeing "Forbidden Planet." But then some days the original version of Star Trek can have me laughing half a day.
 
Galactic Spin said:
Yes, agreed. A point from the OP, in fact, with the definition of "insult" being very loose.

Now, if Fetterman would make a valid argument for a policy, and your only response is "that fool has problems with the spoken word (so his argument can be ignored)... "

...then THAT would be ad hominem.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't what I said be considered ad hominem? You haven't addressed that.

NWRatCon said:
Should someone be allowed to post on DP if they can't understand written words?
Click to expand...
Sure. And they should be allowed to post on DP even if they don't address the point made in a comment they reply to.
I hope you're not suggesting that Fetterman should not be allowed to run, or that anyone shouldn't be allowed to vote for Fetterman, because of his health problems.
That's sounds like a cancel culture kind of thing his particular Party is noted for.
I trust you're not seeing some sort of equivalence between DP and US Senate rules.
 
bubbabgone said:
Why wouldn't what I said be considered ad hominem? You haven't addressed that.
Click to expand...
I have. Repeatedly. Both in general in the OP and directly to you. Re-read.
 
bubbabgone said:
Why wouldn't what I said be considered ad hominem? You haven't addressed that.


Sure. And they should be allowed to post on DP even if they don't address the point made in a comment they reply to.
I hope you're not suggesting that Fetterman should not be allowed to run, or that anyone shouldn't be allowed to vote for Fetterman, because of his health problems.
That's sounds like a cancel culture kind of thing his particular Party is noted for.
I trust you're not seeing some sort of equivalence between DP and US Senate rules.
Click to expand...
Of course I haven't said any of those things, but that is a "straw man" fallacy, which, while a favorite of yours, is not the topic of this thread. ;)
 
I think there is a bit of confusion about the thread topic. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, whether directed at a poster or a source. An ad hominem attack against a poster is a rule violation.

So, saying something reported is unworthy of belief considering its source is an ad hominem fallacy, but saying someone is an idiot for believing something would be both an ad hominem attack and a rule violation.
 
NWRatCon said:
I think there is a bit of confusion about the thread topic. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, whether directed at a poster or a source. An ad hominem attack against a poster is a rule violation.

So, saying something reported is unworthy of belief considering its source is an ad hominem fallacy, but saying someone is an idiot for believing something would be both an ad hominem attack and a rule violation.
Click to expand...
Since ad hominem means "at the person," it is hard to see how that applies to saying, eg, the New York Times is liberally biased. The NYTimes is not a person.
 
Jacksprat said:
Since ad hominem means "at the person," it is hard to see how that applies to saying, eg, the New York Times is liberally biased. The NYTimes is not a person.
Click to expand...
Well, that is just the name of the fallacy. The "person" is "the source", not the substance. Same-same. More correctly is would be ad nōmen (or would that be ad nōmenem? - my latin cases/cognates are not very good), or ad res. attacking the "name", or the "thing", rather than the assertion.
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
I think there is a bit of confusion about the thread topic. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, whether directed at a poster or a source. An ad hominem attack against a poster is a rule violation.

So, saying something reported is unworthy of belief considering its source is an ad hominem fallacy, but saying someone is an idiot for believing something would be both an ad hominem attack and a rule violation.
Click to expand...
You're right about the first instance. I don't really like it though but it seems to fall under the category of a circumstantial ad hominem. The example I found is a father telling he daughter she cannot smoke because it will damage her health. She points out that he is a smoker. She commits a circumstantial ad hominem because her father's inconsistency is not a proper reason to reject his claim. Similarly, a news sources' inconsisitency is not a reason to reject a claim.

That said, I do not like it. :cautious:
 
NWRatCon said:
Of course I haven't said any of those things, but that is a "straw man" fallacy, which, while a favorite of yours, is not the topic of this thread. ;)
Click to expand...
Then why bring up posters on dp if it’s unrelated to the thread topic?
 
NWRatCon said:
Well, that is just the name of the fallacy. The "person" is "the source", not the substance. Same-same. More correctly is would be ad nōmen (or would that be ad nōmenem? - my latin cases/cognates are not very good), or ad res. attacking the "name", or the "thing", rather than the assertion.
Click to expand...
I am laughing at myself, because I realized that "against the thing" would be "contra rem" (or ad rem - "at the the thing") rather than ad res, demonstrating, of course, that I never learned Latin.
 
bubbabgone said:
Then why bring up posters on dp if it’s unrelated to the thread topic?
Click to expand...
Of course, it was YOUR off-topic post that I was responding to... How many other fallacies do you wish to import into the thread?

Substantively, if one doesn't understand what the topic is, it's best to refrain from posting, isn't it? Unless it is to inquire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom