Sigh.
I think you misread something.
Definitely not.
The reference for my "it" was apparently unclear. I meant "if the statement is relevant."
I know it was, hence my response that even if it is relevant that it can still be an ad hominem, ie a valid attack ie that ad hominems are not necessarily what you say they are.
Excuse me? Looking it up produced a definition that that confirmed my understanding that ad hominems are distractions, not relevant.
I know it did. The only way that a paper like that makes it’s way into the public sphere is if there is an already existing, sufficiently strong dogma, that it challenges, sufficiently. Sorry, but dictionary based evidence is not a proof of one’s argument when the very definition itself is what’s being challenged. Such would merely reflect the status quo, but things are changing all the time. Quite frankly I don’t expect this one to make it into the dictionary too soon, but that’s a thin reed, on which to hang your hat. Things are the way they are, until we define them. In fact even after we define them, they still are the way they are.
I don't think so. I reason I don't think so is that this reinterpretation has no constructive utility. It complicates what is a straightforward and useful notion--the ad hominem character attack as intentional diversion from a losing argument.
Walton suggests that ad hominems come in two flavors, legitimate or illegitimate. The difference is in their construction. He argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. You say that there is no value to this. You think it’s baloney, implying that character attacks, by definition, are never legitimate.
Why mess that up? So somebody with too much time on his hands can create an exception?
Unfortunately, the burden of proof would require you to substantiate your position with legitimate criticism, not with with things like why mess it up, too much time on his hands etc These are ad hominems are they not, so from your pov they should be irrelevant should they not. You can’t use an ad hominem under the traditional definition, to make an argument, because they are of necessity fallacious, are they not. The fact is this guy is an academic, dissecting these things is what he does for a living, so I don’t see how those attacks are relevent. That much should be clear. Not a good start.
Or maybe to create a further diversion when someone calls him on his use of an ad hominem?
Ahem, you talking tame or are you tawkin ta me. What should also be clear is that I don’t do this for a living. So for ex. in my case your ad hominem if there was one, might be justified. Which is the guys point. Granted he acknowledges the difficulties of fine lines and grey areas. On one hand you deny his assertion, but at the same time appear to be making his point. Perhaps ? At least as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t compute. <g> Things are not going well.
Yeah, that's just what the world needs--further complication for negative purposes. Nope.
Comments like that appear in your mind, yet Allen says that this just sounds like common sense, simple to understand. I happen to agree with him and suggest your baloney misdirected.
Unless you can identify some value that I missed, I'll stick with option B: baloney.
Raley, who wrote the article suggests that Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider.
Obviously our mileage varies. I’m up to 10000 angels and counting. O and I quit. |
