

What constitutes a true ad hominem argument? - sfk
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

======
randomwalker
This was the best example by far IMO:

    
    
        A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
        B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."
    
        B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem.
        He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he
        tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, 
        he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of
        an *ad homonym* argument.)

------
cliffy
You sir, are an idiot.

------
cousin_it
He also has a great article on the software developer condition:
<http://plover.net/~bonds/software.html>

------
zmimon
Nice to see a good explanation (if a little painstaking) of this. "Ad hominem"
is fast becoming the new Godwin ...

Having said that, I hope that people don't think this gives everyone license
to abuse each other. Regardless of whether it's part of your argument,
insulting or ridiculing someone rarely helps progress an argument forward.

------
sofal
Another term that is overused is the "straw man argument" comeback. It's not
Latin, but people still viciously cling to it.

Wherever there is a misunderstanding between two different sides, the
defensive cry "straw man!" is heard either to compensate for a lack of ability
(or motivation) to explain a point of view or to willfully ignore obvious
implications of an argument.

If you look hard enough, you can find a straw man in almost every argument.
Although it's important to find these misinterpretations and correct them, it
usually does no good to yell "straw man!" at the other guy as part of your
rebuttal.

There are some cases where a straw man argument is purposely used, usually to
attack someone else's beliefs or philosophy, and therefore I think it's
appropriate to bring up that term (if you're up to feeding trolls).

Next time you feel like reaching for your "straw man" defense, try to
understand how and why you may have been misinterpreted, and take the
opportunity to explain yourself better.

------
sh1mmer
This argument would be interesting if the author wasn't an idiot and had a
grasp of what sarcasm is.

 _A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a
mammal."_

 _B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about
logic."_

 _B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's
argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is
no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his
argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a
good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic
flourish._

What a genius!

~~~
sh1mmer
Apparently the rater who down-modded me gets sarcasm and faux-ad hominem.

------
bena
According to this guy, the only ad hominem argument is invoking ad hominem. Of
course, he is using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to prove his point saying
that the other arguments aren't "true" ad hominem.

~~~
aston
He only points out that many arguments that point out _ad hominem_ arguments
are themselves _ad hominem_. He doesn't restrict _ad hominem_ to that one
case, though.

And if you didn't suck at reading comprehension, I wouldn't need to point that
out...

~~~
bena
My reading comprehension is fine, it's just that about the only arguments he
finds to be ad hominem are those claiming ad hominem.

Although the article could have been much shorter if he simply defined ad
hominem as "You're an asshole and therefore wrong."

~~~
aston
I was just kidding about the reading comprehension. Mostly.

Here's an example he gave of an ad hominem attack that doesn't involve calling
the other person's attack ad hominem:

    
    
       A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
       B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."
    

and here's another (from the Nick Naylor school of rhetoric):

    
    
       A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
       B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."

~~~
bena
Yeah, I get it. It's an article about ad hominem, so the joking insults come
out.

The first may not actually be ad hominem. If A actually doesn't have a good
grasp of logic, then there is no attack just a statement of fact. And he
actually says the opposite earlier, but with the statements reversed (This
can't be true, you don't have a good grasp of logic.).

And the second is argument from authority, not ad hominem.

Lastly, ad hominem doesn't always address the argument. In fact ad hominem is
an abandonment of argument in favor of abuse. You start appealing to people's
emotion by painting a negative image of the person.

~~~
Retric
He said: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, _SO_ this can't be
true."

Which is the same as saying: "This can't be true, _BECAUSE_ you've never had a
good grasp of logic."

The problem with ad hominem attacks is a broken clock can be correct twice a
day or more. So saying the clock is broken does not necessarily imply that
it's wrong _now_ just that it has been wrong in the past and will probably be
wrong in the future.

When parsing arguments look for words like _and, or, because, so, thus,_ etc
as they are the foundations of arguments. You can add a lot of meaningless
drivel around the core argument but as soon as someone starts tossing those
words around they are probably trying to use logic. His point is the way an
attack is connected to the argument determines if calling something ad hominem
discredits the argument.

PS: People sometimes add an ad hominem attack as part of other more rational
statements, so IMO attacking the person even alongside a rational argument is
still an ad hominem attack even if it is not used to directly attack their
argument. However, simply calling part of what someone says an ad hominem
attack does not destroy the rest of the argument if it's not directly linked
to it. It's like a defense attorney that counters the DNA evidence but ignores
the video tape and the confession is going to fail.

~~~
bena
The problem being is that not having a good grasp of logic can cause you to
reach wrong conclusions. It can be a direct cause. In which case, it is a
valid point to bring up as it supports your argument.

~~~
Retric
Knowing the cause is useful, but to discredit someone's argument you need to
find the mistake. Think million monkey's typing for a million years randomly
recreating Calculus. The source is dumb but it works.

------
JoelSutherland
It's also important to remember that the reverse is true:

[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-
authority...](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-
authority.html)

~~~
marcus
Yes that is what PG always says.

------
eatenbyagrue
Oh man I wish comments were enabled on his post...

------
Eliezer
Beautiful, thorough, and precise.

