Every monkey here that thinks he is being wrongfully persecuted in an arguement whinily uses ad hominem like he knows what the hell it means. I knew what it meant, yet, in the interest of journalistic integrity, I looked it up and great! Most folks use it correctly and bully for them, but all the high-brow pretentiousness cache it used to carry hit empty around its hundredth use nine months ago.
Whatever, you ad hominem grammar nazi ballsniffer.
So personal attacks are still cool, just don’t use ad hominem anymore?
Tyjenks, I totally used it right, and the real right, not the fake new “right”.
Apparently it’s now technically OK to use it to mean any insult because so many usenet retards already have used it that way. Somebody in some other forums was getting ridden for misuse and posting this quote-filled screed from various dictionaries. Shook my faith in humanity, but I guess language evolves. Irregardless better not become a word, though.
And hundredth? Shit, it’s the been used against the right but mean since,well, as long as I’ve been on teh intarweb.
Tim - Attacks are what makes the world go ‘round. I would never suggest the halting of those. Its the overuse of that one friggin’ Latin phrase that is getting my goat.
I just meant hundredth on this board. :) I knew that you had used it right and, yes, your use prompted me to start a thread regarding this issue which was sorely in need of being brought to the attention of internet citizens the world over. I guess it is more of a pet peeve. It is a great phrase that is bandied about with such abandon that it pretty much has lost its bite.
Next on the banning block: Vitriol. So you folks think hard before using it, dammit!
Ad hominem attacks, like most fallacies, aren’t ALWAYS bad arguments. For instance, if you told me that a candy bar didn’t taste good while you were obviously enjoying it, I could properly use a tu quoque (you do it too!) argument, which is a form of ad hominem, to argue against your claim. Similarly, if you were a member of the KKK and said something bad about black people, your argument would be suspect because of who you are. The problem is that a lot of people around here use BAD ad hominem attacks and you HAVE to call them on it. You can’t just dismiss someone’s argument by saying something bad about them. OTOH, Ben is right to point out that an insult is NOT an ad hominem argument. It’s just a personal attack, which is NOT the same thing.
Also, as you can tell from my post, there are too many logic terms that use Latin. I happened to study Latin and logic (hell, I teach logic), so I happen to know them. Most people don’t, which makes it far too easy to get away with using the terms improperly. It’s also generally pretentious to use Latin anyway (there’s irony in that sentence, for those who can see it).
I have no problems with occasional ad hominem attacks, personally. People who throw this term around and claim it invalidates the attacker are missing the point. Sometimes, one of the most telling arguments against a position is one that points out the biases of the one doing the arguing–ie, a personal attack. Personal attacks can make the difference between a well-reasoned position and a rationalization very clear.
What cracks me up is when folks like Cleve complain about being subjected to ad hominen attacks after unleashing dozens of their own. You gotta laugh at hypocrites.
Edit: dang it, Robert, you said the exact same thing I just said, only 3 minutes faster :)
Sorry Dave. Next time, I’ll wait five minutes to give you a chance ;)
[quote=“Robert_Sharp”]
Sorry Dave. Next time, I’ll wait five minutes to give you a chance ;)[/quote]
Woohoo! I’ll get to be profound and meaningful first!
You stink, therefore I dismiss your argument.
[size=2]I’m just testing your theory. Please don’t take offense. So far it seems to be working though? :) [/size]
Stop being such a Nazi, Tyjenks. Wanting to ban this and that. For fuck’s sake. I mean, look at your post-count, you greedy forum-mongering Jew. Nazi-Jew! You’re the worst of the worst!
And it’s “cachet,” you Nazi-Jew gator-lovin’ ballsniffer.
:P
No ad hominem? No PK? O.o !!!
It’s hard to have ad hominem arguments on the net because more often than not you don’t know other people’s real names or genders (and in some cases you don’t even know their species) so it’s a reach to say they’re wrong because of any personal characteristic… More like ad anonymem than ad hominem…
Anyhow, just because you’re stupid doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
“There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.”
You stink, therefore I dismiss your argument.
[size=2]I’m just testing your theory. Please don’t take offense. So far it seems to be working though? :) [/size][/quote]
See, that’s what I meant. There are good kinds of ad hominem attacks. As it turns out, I haven’t showered in days. I DO stink, and that is as good a reason as any not to listen to me.
it’s all greek to me 
fascinating stuff, folks…thanks for the erudite disclaimers on the proper use of ‘ad hominem’ (though, sorry rob, i preferr dave’s explanation better)
illogician tactics (now updated with dave’s quote)
it’s all greek to me fascinating stuff, folks…thanks for the erudite disclaimers on the proper use of ‘ad hominem’ (though, sorry rob, i preferr dave’s explanation better)
illogician tactics (now updated with dave’s quote)[/quote]
Woot! Quoted as an authority on a board I’ve never heard of before. I have arrived.
Take that, Sharp. 
it’s all greek to me fascinating stuff, folks…thanks for the erudite disclaimers on the proper use of ‘ad hominem’ (though, sorry rob, i preferr dave’s explanation better)
illogician tactics (now updated with dave’s quote)[/quote]
That’s fine, I guess, but neither of us were actually trying to define ad hominem. But I guess you are using it to show how to OVERCOME ad hominem claims, in which case my explanation is more scholarly, since I teach logic ;). Dave’s is all layman-like. heh.
He doesn’t even use examples. How can anyone learn from that?
Seriously though, both our quotes should be taken as incomplete. They are both misleading because neither really explains when ad hominem CAN be a fallacy. For instance, a lot of arguments in politics are dismissed because they come from a liberal or a conservative (depending on which side you prefer). That MAY be acceptable in certain contexts, but you really have to look at the argument itself to decide. The person’s politics don’t really matter if the argument is good. Ad hominem attacks can be very subtle sometimes too. For instance, the attack I used on Dave above is a type of ad hominem attack. I am saying his explanation isn’t good because he doesn’t teach logic. That’s an ad hominem fallacy. OTOH, if I had simply said, my explanation should be preferred because I am an authority on logic (which I am, as it turns out) then my argument would have been a decent use of argument from authority.
BTW, none of that was an attempt to be quoted on some website. It’s just meant to point out that neither Dave nor I were trying to be authoritative in our explanations.
True enough, Robert. As I said in my initial post, I have no problems with the occasional ad hominem attack. They are useful in limited circumstances and badly abused in others. My intent was to show that they’re not universally bad.
I just wanted the damn term to go on hiatus. Now you nutjobs come along and say it ~18 more times. To add to your intelligent debate about the origins and appropriate usage of “ad hominem”, I would like to say one of my favorite Latin terms:
Ite-Bay E-May!!!