It was in Frank's previoius message: <<Latin, literally ‘to the person.’ >>
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 16 May 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [UC] ad hominem
This post is a classic. I would not say this often, but really examine this
post. This post might help folks really understand the concept.
'Ad hominem' is a term used to describe the way you abuse ideas, not the way
> you abuse persons
The above statement from Mr. West is absurd. I forget the exact translation
but it is something like "at the man" It's the complete opposite of West's
statement.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:22 AM
Subject: [UC] ad hominem
> 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>.
>
>
> -- > No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: >
> 269.7.1/805 - Release Date: 5/15/2007 10:47 AM
>
>
----
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>.
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.
