posted on March 24, 2003 03:24:21 PM new
It's no secret which side of the current debate I'm on, but this isn't aimed at either side, because posters on both sides have been guilty. I'm just going to point out something, and ask that people consider it when they post here.
"Argumentum Ad Hominem" translates as "argument against the man" and is one of the main types of "false appeals" taught in basic logic classes. Essentially, ad hominem arguments slide past the issue being argued and attack the opponent.
There is a very good description of "Ad hominem" attacks here.
There is a time and place when you can make a valid relationship between a person's individual circumstances and their stand on a particular issue. But that argument rarely applies on an anonymous message board. It's wrong - and it weakens your own argument - when you dismiss what someone's saying based on what you assume about them. It can sometimes gain a temporary advantage - you put your opponent on the defensive with your attempt to force them to "prove" a negative. But to those observing a debate, ad hominem attacks only imply that you can't really defend the position you've taken so you're dragging the debate down to a level at which you feel more comfortable.
Just something to think about - or not. It's a free country.
posted on March 24, 2003 04:12:46 PM new
I agree that the Ad Hominem attacks here are rampant. There are all kinds of posts stating that the Iraq war is about oil, Haliburton, and corporations making money.
Why even the Bush tax cut is maligned becaused some claim it is only for rich friends of Bush.
Now all you Anti-Bush anti-American liberals stop making these Ad Hominem claims by affliation. It is a Bozo no-no.
posted on March 24, 2003 04:18:41 PM new
All I agreed to is that Ad Hominem attacks here are rampant and are being carried out by Anti-Bush anti-American liberals.
In fact the description of "Ad hominem" in the link is not accurate. Self dealing within a position is a legitimate and valid form of attack. It is not complete nor perfect form, but it is valid.
posted on March 24, 2003 04:39:27 PM new
I stand by the link, but there are other definitions of ad hominem here and here and here.
If you're arguing that, in fact, "ad hominem" arguments are generally acceptable in logical discourse, or only applicable to one side or the other of a debate, then you've got the entire tradition and weight of Western civilized thought against you. If that's OK with you, then right on wit' your bad self!
By the way, so as not to be guilty of the ad hominem attacks myself ... I need to know which AW screen name President Bush is using, and which Vice-President Cheney is using. Also Attorney General Ashcroft.
neonmania I used to be insane, but I got bored with it
posted on March 24, 2003 07:44:33 PM new
"logical discourse" is only good in formal debate, it is not applicable outside a rigid debating society that legislates nothing and enforces none of its conclusions.
In the political realm, the Ad Hominem is valid. Self dealing and considering the source of the argument are crucial to giving critical analysis of motives for asserting the position in the first place.
The link also gives the inapplicable example of the argument "2+2=4 even if Hitler advocates it". But we are rarely ever given positions as deductive as 2+2=4 in any political discourse.
Is an Ad Hominem attack a "false appeal" to question a "wonderful taxpayer project" when a political donor is to be awarded the government contract for the project without bids ? After all, it is a wonderful project, but under formal and logical discourse, it is a "false appeal".
It does make a difference when only men legislate laws on abortion and an Ad Hominem appeal should be made. It does make a difference when a legislator advocates a position that greatly benefits a donor, and an Ad Hominem appeal should be made.
The "rules" of formal argument rarely apply in practical or informal situations.
posted on March 24, 2003 08:02:46 PM new
I agree there are gradations of ad hominem attack. So where is the line? Is it OK for anyone to say anything about anybody? At what point does an argument stop being convincing and start being ridiculous?
posted on March 24, 2003 08:13:38 PM newAt what point does an argument stop being convincing and start being ridiculous?
That's easy, it starts being ridiculous as soon as the name calling begins. Sadly, it seems like that's often in the first few posts of a thread these days.
posted on March 24, 2003 09:11:34 PM new
It depends on what you mean by name calling. Refering to a poster as anti-American, or a liberal is not "name calling", it is merely associating ideas with groups.
Does it make a difference if communists and socialists advocate an action, even if the action is a valid position ? Sure it does.
Part of the problem is that by refusing to associate the ideas with these groups, an element of legitimacy is added to the action and individual which it doesn't deserve.
Consider this situation:
Mary is an excellent banker.
She has an MBA.
She has wonderful interpersonal skills.
She manages her department well and has made the bank millions of dollars.
Mary should be fired.
Why- because of what some might consider an Ad Hominem false appeal.
Mary has been convicted of embezzeling twice.
Now if I added that Ad Hominem false appeal, concluding Mary should be fired makes sense.
What if we just added that Mary was a crook and a liar ?
Or- Bob is married and has two grown children.
He is probably the best elementary school teacher our system has, he teaches children aged 8-9 years old.
He loves his job of 24 years.
His students always perform well academically.
Bob is a member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which advocates sexual relations between young boys and older men. The group maintains that these sexual relationships are healthy for all involved and should not be against the law.
Is Bob being in this group relevant to the argument of him retaining his job? Is calling him a sexual pervert a false appeal ? Is calling him immoral a false appeal ? is calling him a perverted a**hole a false appeal?
"Name calling" is essential when relevant.
If by name calling you mean- dumda**, sh*t for brains etc, which are irrelevant, it really makes no difference. If someone rejects an argument because someone referred to its advocate as a dumba**, you should be glad that the person went with the other side.
posted on March 24, 2003 11:29:28 PM new
This is a very interesting thread! I first learned what ad hominem meant when I was on the city council. A philosophy professor friend of mine warned me about it as we were talking about our "jerk" mayor's latest bright idea. It was illuminating to put a name to what I'd been guilty of.
One thing I've observed--we tend to hate great ideas when they come from people we dislike. Where is it written that good ideas come only from good people? I do avoid namecalling whenever possible, which is most of the time. It'd be great if we had less name-calling in this forum. The name-calling often stops any reasonable debate cold, which is unfortunate.
posted on March 25, 2003 01:00:21 PM new
12pole and reamond should just rename themselves to Ad Hominem 1 and Ad Hominem 2.
They are totally c l u e l e s s
Even Bush the Lesser is thinking..."please guys, just shut up will ya."
Further opinions of the two:
Rush Limbaugh: "Next to them, I look like the most intelligent guy in the world!"
Drudge: "I would never use them as a source of information! I DO have my standards you know!"
KKK & Nazi Youth: "Come on guys, the minorities aren't THAT bad."
As for:
I'm off to make a place on my mantel for that 2004 "Best Director" award
I hope you don't have any "moral" blemishes or these two will complain bitterly.
And THEY are the be all, end all definers of what is righteous, moral and good!
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
[ edited by mlecher on Mar 25, 2003 01:03 PM ]
[ edited by mlecher on Mar 25, 2003 01:05 PM ]
