On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:39:15 -0500 Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/25/13 2:12 AM, Artur Skawina wrote: > > On 01/24/13 21:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> On 1/24/13 2:03 PM, Artur Skawina wrote: > >>> Trying to make arguments you don't like go away and silencing the > >>> messenger is your MO. > >> > >> Now that's what's called "ad hominem". > > > > No, it's not - it's just stating the facts; this was not the first > > such incident. > > Of course it is. The definition is simple enough, e.g. from > Wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for > argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an > opponent instead of against their argument. > "Ad hominem" *as a logical fallacy* is only applicable when the argument against the person is *intended* to prove something unrelated to the targeted person. For example, "Joe Schmo is a known asshole" *could* very easily be a logical fallacy. But it clearly *isn't* a fallacy if the speaker is using it to show: "Joe Schmo, your request to be a kindergarten teacher should be rejected." Artur was clearly making a side note about an unfortunate tendency in some of your posts that I've noticed as well. This was to make you aware of it and hopefully do it less. It was NOT, as you suggest, being put forth as evidence for Artur's property-related arguments.
