"Ad Hominem"--the Intellectually Lazy Person's Dodge

[WI-Tom]

I know. I know. It's fashionable. All the "cool" people are doing it. It's happened to me. I've seen it happen to others.

But please don't indulge in the uninformed, kneejerk response of "ad hominem" as a reaction to someone else's critique of your opinions, thoughts, and explanations. That is not what "ad hominem" means. Using "ad hominem" in this way is intellectually lazy, it's boring, and it short-circuits actual discussion by refusing to address the merits of the argument being presented.

Misusing "ad hominem" drags down the level of discourse in the Bilge (as if that were necessary!) and is, in effect, simply a dodge for those unable or unwilling to respond with a refutation and clear explanation, which could actually advance the discussion and help everyone learn.

So, please:

If someone tells you that you are incorrect, they are NOT engaging in an "ad hominem" attack.

Even if they tell you that you are wrong quite bluntly, or energetically, or even passionately--nope. Still not "ad hominem."

Even if they tell you REPEATEDLY that you are wrong--nope. STILL not "ad hominem."

Even if they tell you that your thinking is "idiotic" or "moronic" or that you are "making sh!t up" or that you don't know what you are talking about--nope. STILL not "ad hominem."

Even if you think they are repeatedly wrong, and unable or unwilling to assess their own beliefs, and they keep telling you (incorrectly, as you believe) that you are wrong--nope. STILL still not "ad hominem."

So, what DOES "ad hominem" look like? Like this:

You post: "There is a direct correlation between your political affiliation and the likelihood of you contracting COVID-19; Republicans get sick more often than Democrats."

I post: "You're ugly, and your mother dresses you funny."

THAT is "ad hominem." Did you note the distinguishing feature? Based on the rampant misuse of "ad hominem" in the Bilge, I bet some of you missed it the first time around. Here it is:

It is "ad hominem" because it attacks the PERSON and ignores the ARGUMENT.

A post that attacks the argument and the quality of thinking is NOT an "ad hominem" attack, no matter HOW insulting or offensive it is to you.

Thank you. That is all. Next week we'll take on the popular "straw man" defense, which is misused nearly as often as "ad hominem." Until then, fair winds and following seas, everyone!

[George.]

Is this a postmodern spinoff thread?

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Only because you say so.

[L.W. Baxter]

it's not ad hominem if it's true

[WI-Tom]

Is this a postmodern spinoff thread?

While that may be the dominant meta-narrative at this moment, any good postmodernist would tell you that other narratives are equally deserving of consideration.

Tom

[Paul Pless]

but i like hominy

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

The world's biggest fool can tell you it's raining - but that don't make it dry outside

RAH

[L.W. Baxter]

now do an essay on the strawman fallacy

[WI-Tom]

now do an essay on the strawman fallacy

Ahem...

Thank you. That is all. Next week we'll take on the popular "straw man" defense, which is misused nearly as often as "ad hominem." Until then, fair winds and following seas, everyone!

Tom

[John Smith]

I confess this thread confuses me. When is a response not 'ad hominem' and who gets to draw the line?

[George.]

who gets to draw the line?

Authority, of course.

[WI-Tom]

I confess this thread confuses me. When is a response not 'ad hominem' and who gets to draw the line?

I have failed...

Tom

[L.A Marche]

The lines are drawn, your duty is to toe it.

[oznabrag]

but i like hominy

This message is hidden because pefjr is on your ignore list.

!

[Garret]

I confess this thread confuses me. When is a response not 'ad hominem' and who gets to draw the line?

Please reread Tom's original post - he lays it out clearly.

[John Smith]

Please reread Tom's original post - he lays it out clearly.

Sorry, but it seems a good bit subjective, does it not?

Seems to me it is when the messenger, rather than the message is attacked. https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

Maybe I missed that; wouldn't be the first time.

To say, "You are wrong." could be construed as an attack on the messenger, no? As opposed to "That is wrong.", which would be an attack on the message.

Perhaps that's an overly thin line?

[L.W. Baxter]

Please reread Tom's original post - he lays it out clearly.

i agree, except instead lf "clearly" i would insert "with hilarious lack of self-awareness".

[Garret]

Sorry, but it seems a good bit subjective, does it not?

Seems to me it is when the messenger, rather than the message is attacked. https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

Yup - that's it.

[Tom Montgomery]

.
Tom is spot on.

But my understanding is that bobbys' "Ad Hominy" has a different definition entirely.

[Tom Montgomery]

To say, "You are wrong." could be construed as an attack on the messenger, no? As opposed to "That is wrong.", which would be an attack on the message.

Perhaps that's an overly thin line?

Yes it is.

"You are wrong" is not an ad hominum reply.

"Your remark is evidence that all you right-winguts are morons." is an ad hominum reply.

[oznabrag]

.
Tom is spot on.

But my understanding is that bobbys' "Ad Hominy" has a different definition entirely.

bobbys stole that from peffy.

[WI-Tom]

i agree, except instead lf "clearly" i would insert "with hilarious lack of self-awareness".

You are going to LOVE next week's "straw man" thread!

Tom

[amish rob]

This op is exactly what a lazy person would type.

Did I do it right? I’m trying to ad ham and them.

[Garret]

This op is exactly what a lazy person would type.

Did I do it right? I’m trying to ad ham and them.

& ended up with egg on your face? Hey - it's breakfast-time...

[amish rob]

& ended up with egg on your face? Hey - it's breakfast-time...

See? More egg discrimination! First, we got a guy putting savory eggs in a pie shell, and now we’re being told eggs are for breakfast?!

Hominimenims!

[amish rob]

Isn’t Hominen that rapper from Detroit?

[Garret]

Isn’t Hominen that rapper from Detroit?

No - it's M&M from CandyLand

[amish rob]

No - it's M&M from CandyLand

To be fair, for a dude named Marshall Mathers, Eminem is a brilliant name. Clever.

[sonofswen]

but i like hominy

it lacks spice.

[CWSmith]

On the other hand, if someone tells you that you are wrong without explanation, then it's just an arrogant and condescending remark. So at least explain your thoughts when you do it.

[Garret]

On the other hand, if someone tells you that you are wrong without explanation, then it's just an arrogant and condescending remark. So at least explain your thoughts when you do it.

You're wrong.

[amish rob]

You're wrong.

And, if you don’t know why, well... I’m sure I couldn’t explain it to you.

[Keith Wilson]

Good points, Tom, although I'd say you're laying it on a little too thick.. A possibly useful distinction:

An insult is a deliberately derogatory claim about someone. May be true, may be not, may be nasty, may be humorous, may even occasionally be friendly.

An ad hominem fallacy is the claim that because of some characteristic of the person making an argument, the argument itself is invalid.

Sometimes an insult is just an insult. Sometimes what looks like an ad hominem fallacy isn't, because the characteristic mentioned is relevant to judging the expertise of the person and hence the argument ('Don't listen to Keith, he's never read Derrida in all his life.' (true) 'Waldo doesn't understand statistics at all.' ) But while it's rarely as clear-cut as in lists of logical fallacies, things like 'He's a Republican, of course that's what he'd say' get pretty close. The point is that the characteristics referenced are irrelevant to the truth of the argument.

[oznabrag]

See? More egg discrimination! First, we got a guy putting savory eggs in a pie shell, and now we’re being told eggs are for breakfast?!

Hominimenims!

Houyhnhnms?

[oznabrag]

Good points, Tom, although I'd say you're laying it on a little too thick.. A possibly useful distinction:

An insult is a deliberately derogatory claim about someone. May be true, may be not, may be nasty, may be humorous, may even occasionally be friendly.

An ad hominem fallacy is the claim that because of some characteristic of the person making an argument, the argument itself is invalid.

Sometimes an insult is just an insult. Sometimes what looks like an ad hominem fallacy isn't, because the characteristic mentioned is relevant to judging the expertise of the person and hence the argument ('Don't listen to Keith, he's never read Derrida in all his life.' (true) 'Waldo doesn't understand statistics at all.' ) But while it's rarely as clear-cut as in lists of logical fallacies, things like 'He's a Republican, of course that's what he'd say' get pretty close. The point is that the characteristics referenced are irrelevant to the truth of the argument.

'Insult' is closer to 'assault' than it is to 'slander'.