The Fenton definition (2) is sure funny, but it is never employed in 21st-c.
English. It is just literal Latin, the kind of thing people who speak Latin
every day would say.
The Shorter OED definition, 1936, is: "1748. [L.] Of arguments, etc. :
Directed to the preferences or principles of the individual, not to the
abstract truth." The 'ad hominem argument' is a tool of philosophical
analysis. Definition (1) below doesn't work; all sorts of things appeal to
the emotions that aren't ad hominem. What is your source? I hope not some
on-line thing. "Attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the
policy or position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks" is an
accurate definition of usage, however.
'Ad hominem' is a term used to describe the way you abuse ideas, not the way
you abuse persons. It describes a failure to address a policy or position
properly in a debate, by muddying them with a negative perception of the
personality of its advocate. "Anti-communism is bad because J. Edgar Hoover,
who was a fierce anti-communist, was a closet homosexual" -- that would be
an ad hominem argument.
If I am insane but my argument is sound -- tied up in my straightjacket, I
cry out, "The sun rises in the east!" -- then you cannot refute me by
calling me insane.
In Ray's case, I think the issue is more that he has published reams of
posts for many years that fit standard definitions of "paranoia" and
"hypocrisy". He'd like these factual observations to be equated with his own
murky accusations of wrongdoing by numerous neighbors of his, accusations
that occupy at least one-third of his numerous total postings over the
years.
The key is direct, causal evidence. If you can demonstrate I am a hypocrite,
and my hypocrisy confounds the central point of my argument, then that's not
an ad hominem attack; that's a refutation.
Ray's central point -- that all who take Penn funding are evil betrayers of
The Community, no matter how they go about it, merely because one buck in
their pocket is derived from Penn -- is refuted by the fact he himself has
taken more funding from Penn than have most, if not all, of the community
volunteer groups he has attacked. It's not clear how much Penn funding Ray
has consumed over the years, but it's got to be pushing at least $400,000
and could easily be over $1 million.
So if a group of hundreds of neighbors that took $40,000 from Penn is evil,
why is one man who took $400,000 from Penn in any position to judge it? This
makes no sense. It's illogical. It's not so much that Ray's statements over
the years are offensive or mean; it's that they just don't add up.
-- Tony West
From: "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, he's using it correctly. It means "not based on logic" but not
necessarily "illogical." I think it's more about intention. For instance,
if I called someone insane just to be mean and they happened to *be*
insane in some measurable way, my comment is no less ad hominem.
I love the definitions below. It's funny they used Fenton for their
example.
ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm| |ˌˈød ˌhɑmənəm| |ad ˌhɒmɪnɛm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions
and not reason or logic.
• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or
position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person : [as adv. ] the
office was created ad hominem for Fenton. | [as adj. ] an ad hominem
response.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to the person.’
----
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>.
