Excellent distinctions! I think I could tighten up a bit in my own use of the term.
---In [email protected], <anartaxius@...> wrote : ---In [email protected], <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote (to Curtis) : That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Doug, ad hominem is not a meme, it is an informal logical fallacy in which a personal characteristic or action or situation a person has or is in is taken as proof his/her argument is false. 'Ad hominem' means 'to the man', instead of refuting a logical argument or position directly, one diverts attention to the person who made the argument one does not believe or like. An ad hominem is not necessarily a personal attack although it could be. It's primary function is to act as a diversion to what the real discussion is about while seeming to be a point in the argument for a particular idea or line of reasoning. Extremely common in politics. A meme is 'an idea, behaviour, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture' and has little to do with ad hominem as a logical error. If I said regarding this subject here 'Doug cannot understand what 'ad hominem' means because he is a farmer', that would be an example of ad hominem. If I said 'Doug appears to be unaware of the definition of 'ad hominem', that would not be be ad hominem, it would just be an opinion I expressed, because it is not a reasoned argument about anything. A direct personal attack might also not be ad hominem either if it is not being used to refute the other person's position on a subject. It would just be personal invective. Saying something like 'You are so and so you $&@#$', is not ad hominem. Because Curtis studied philosophy, he would probably be the best person here to delineate these points. Now that last statement is called pro hominem, the opposite of ad hominem. That he studied philosophy is no guarantee that he would know, even though I think he does know and better than me. Here are some more samples of ad hominem. (from another website) A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty. A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.” Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs. Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.” Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.” Attacking someone’s own sexual orientation in arguing about the right of LGBT individuals to marry such as “The only reason you could possibly be in favor of this is because you are not being honest about your own sexuality.” Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.” Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.” Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.” Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.” Use of marital status to invalidate an opinion of someone of a different status, e.g., “How can you make a decision about someone having marital problems if you’ve never been married yourself?” Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.” Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?” Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.” Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?” Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle." One of the more interesting things about personal attacks is sometimes they are so witty they are almost like high art because they reveal something deeper about how the human mind works and its diverse ways of interpreting what we experience. But in the hands of the average person, usually they are petty and mundane. The Dean Martin Roasts - Don Rickles (Man of the Week) https://youtu.be/b8t1G9GxIDE https://youtu.be/b8t1G9GxIDE The Dean Martin Roasts - Don Rickles (Man of the Week) https://youtu.be/b8t1G9GxIDE Original Air Date - February 8, 1974 View on youtu.be https://youtu.be/b8t1G9GxIDE Preview by Yahoo
