Except, I always thought that an ad hominem was, by definition, irrelevant to the argument, a distraction.
Yes, this is the traditional view. This interpretation is precisely the one that he’s challenging.
If it's relevant, then it's a logical and appropriate piece of the argument even if it's about the person's character and isn't an ad hominem.
An ad hominem is not an even if proposition. It IS an attack on character. Period. If it’s relevant it is still an ad hominem, but one that is not fallacious. That was his point. He is saying that there are times when ad hominems are relevant, logical and appropriate. They are still ad hominems, attacks on character. There were some examples of this in the article.
So, of course, I had to look it up. From Webster: " marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"
Sorry, but looking it up seems to have done nothing except reinforce your misunderstanding.
I'm going with option B--baloney.
The point is, you missed his point. Call it arcane if you will, but that sounds like option A to me not option B. |
