I don't believe you are using the term "ad hominem" rightly. It is not
merely a synonym for "insulting". "Ad hominem" is a flaw in a *logical
argument*, not a flaw in courtesy.
If you call me a scoundrel, that may be uncivil of you and it may annoy me,
but it is not in itself an ad hominem argument. It is when you argue a
statement of mine is false merely because I am a scoundrel, that you are
propagating an ad hominem logical fallacy. Some scoundrels make false
statements, and sometimes they do so because they are scoundrels, but there
is no necessary connection between these two facts. Say I am a scoundrel
because I sell assault rifles to teenagers by the vanload. If my argument is
that teenagers prefer AK-47s to Uzis, I may be an expert witness precisely
because I am a scoundrel and thus better informed than decent people on this
subject. So calling me a scoundrel -- even accurately -- does not refute my
statement.
Calling someone an unflattering name can be germane to the argument he or
she is making. Paranoid thinking, for instance, is a system of repeated and
eventually predictable flaws in ideation. So if you call my argument wrong
because it is paranoid, that's not an ad hominem attack if you can show why
my thinking matches the knowledgeable definition of paranoia. If it turns
out you're just flinging the term around as a careless popular insult, then
it would be ad hominem.
-- Tony West
Ray wrote:
I too am in favor of civility on the listserv and have previously pointed
out that ad hominem has no place in public discourse or rational debate.
still, ad hominem hasn't gone away, and now we get to see yet another form
of it: hand-picking which ad hominem messages are scolded and which ad
hominem messages are allowed.
YOU GO, AD HOMINEM!
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
