Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (54220)	9/3/1999 4:50:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

e.g. You would be! <g>

To: greenspirit who wrote (54220)	9/3/1999 11:17:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, some ad hominem examples, as per your request. Sorry not to have responded earlier, but I have been snowed... There are many kinds of ad hominem arguments, some much more "sophisticated" than others, but they all share one feature: they try to prove that the opponent's argument is wrong, not by addressing the argument itself, but by addressing (attacking) the character of the opponent. 1) The form we are most familiar with,in everyday life, is the "abusive" ad hominem, e.g.: "That is the sort of idiotic remark I would expect a woman/a man/a liberal/a conservative/an atheist/a religious fanatic/fill in the blank yourself to make." Subtext: You are a woman/man/liberal/conservative/atheist/religious fanatic, therefore you are an idiot, and it isn't worth my while to argue with you. 2) Very closely related is the "circumstantial" (guilt by association) ad hominem: "Liberals/conservatives/men/women/atheists/religious fanatics make arguments like yours all the time." If the above is simply an observation, it does not qualify as an ad hominem. But more often than not, it is meant to serve as a refutation: that is, the bad guys use this argument all the time; they are wrong; you use it too, therefore you also are wrong. 3) Then there is the "tu quoque" (you, too) ad hominem: One simple example: "You can't call me a crook because you're a crook too." Possible response: who is better able to identify a crook than another crook? But the basic point is that a crook's argument is not necessarily invalid just because he is charging someone else with being a crook. This category also includes charges of personal inconsistency: Mr. A. My argument has been that it is morally wrong to use animals for food and clothing. Mr. B. But you are wearing a leather jacket and eating a roast beef sandwich. Therefore it is not wrong to use animals for food and clothing. Well, Mr. A may be a hypocrite, which may even be worth pointing out. But it does not prove that his argument is wrong. 4) "Circumstantial" ad hominem. Here, an argument is dismissed simply because it is in the interest of the person making it. To take one example: Tobacco company A makes claim X. It is in company A's interest to make that claim. Therefore, claim X is wrong. One should, of course, be very skeptical of tobacco companies' claims. But the fact that such claims are so evidently in the interest of those companies does not make them ipso facto wrong. Okay? Have I covered all the bases? <g> Joan