Ad hominem

[TheVisionofEr]

More time is wasted on Latin phrases that are not understood by the people who use them than is thinkable to serious people.

Usually the abuse of the phrase ad hominem involves conflating a "personal attack" with a "logical" error, that of genetic falacy. Very commonly it involves immunizing oneself against critisim. The person makes a gross error, or says something flatly false, in order to rhetorically defend themselves, rather than correcting the error, they claim they have been personally attacked.

This problem is vast, and especially contaminats the political sphere with BS.

IT OUGHT TO BE STAMPED OUT IN GRADE SCHOOL.

[Immanuel Can]

Very commonly it involves immunizing oneself against critisim. The person makes a gross error, or says something flatly false, in order to rhetorically defend themselves, rather than correcting the error, they claim they have been personally attacked.

That's not a different fallacy. It's the same one, performed by the speaker instead of the critic. Anybody who fails to differentiate between the person speaking and the idea offered by his speech is guilty of the ad hominem fallacy -- be he critic or defensive theorist.

There are few exceptions. But one is when the speaker voluntarily and explicitly inserts statements about his own identity and character as certification of his claim. Another is when a person's competence in some area is materially dependent on his personal character, as in a job reference or as a witness in a trial.

But in ordinary philosophy, character assassination is ad hominem...irrelevant, fallacious, and not a little childish, as is the evincing of personal hurt when only one's ideas have been attacked, not one's character. They're both equally bad.

[Scott Mayers]

More time is wasted on Latin phrases that are not understood by the people who use them than is thinkable to serious people.

Usually the abuse of the phrase ad hominem involves conflating a "personal attack" with a "logical" error, that of genetic falacy. Very commonly it involves immunizing oneself against critisim. The person makes a gross error, or says something flatly false, in order to rhetorically defend themselves, rather than correcting the error, they claim they have been personally attacked.

This problem is vast, and especially contaminats the political sphere with BS.

IT OUGHT TO BE STAMPED OUT IN GRADE SCHOOL.

I agree.

But most good texts on fallacies often tell you that asserting a fallacy by label is not appropriate in context to debate unless others already understand. In fact, when noticing that most fallacies are themselves inductive anyways, they are conditional as fallacies only, not universal. As such, one should spell out why one thinks the fallacy is committed with a counter-example. Different authors also use different labels to define the same fallacy. So asserting the definition of the fallacy you think occurs helps if it is not understood with an example of how you interpret it as such is best. That way, you permit the other to see from your perspective what the error might be and can either correct what you mean or counter why you do not see it as an error in your context.

[Scott Mayers]

"Ad Hominem" was labeled to particularly make one notice that the challenging argument of another is focussed on attacking the person rather than the argument. The person COULD be a justified challenge if their motive is signficant to the position of the arguer. As such, it may not be a fallacy.

For instance, it can be a "conflict of interest" to have a person defending something where the honesty of their position is dependent upon their invested interest. Do you expect, for instance, to have an employee representing the NRA as their Public relations officer to admit fault in an argument regarding gun control when such admission would automatically dismiss their employer's purpose for hiring them and likely assure they would be attacked for being disloyal? You CAN then argue that the person is personally biased with rational insult of their employment if they are demanding faith in what they claim is to be trusted or be disproven by the opponent.

It can be 'ad hominem' then without necessarily being irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It might be irrelevant to the particular argument but relevant to the motive that might be inhibiting some other part of the argument.

[Impenitent]

are you implying that grape juice makers are beyond name calling?

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Do you expect, for instance, to have an employee representing the NRA as their Public relations officer to admit fault in an argument regarding gun control when such admission would automatically dismiss their employer's purpose for hiring them and likely assure they would be attacked for being disloyal?

That is indeed potentially an exception. Or, do we expect a senator of one party not to vote to impeach the opposition, under any circumstances, when the success of the party that sponsors him can be increased thereby? And do we expect such a person to say that the opposition is doing as well as can be done with COVID-19 measures, or that anything the opposition has done has to be wicked, incompetent and foolish?

Or is that a naughty question we simply cannot ask?

[TheVisionofEr]

Very commonly it involves immunizing oneself against critisim. The person makes a gross error, or says something flatly false, in order to rhetorically defend themselves, rather than correcting the error, they claim they have been personally attacked.

That's not a different fallacy. It's the same one, performed by the speaker instead of the critic. Anybody who fails to differentiate between the person speaking and the idea offered by his speech is guilty of the ad hominem fallacy -- be he critic or defensive theorist.

There are few exceptions. But one is when the speaker voluntarily and explicitly inserts statements about his own identity and character as certification of his claim. Another is when a person's competence in some area is materially dependent on his personal character, as in a job reference or as a witness in a trial.

But in ordinary philosophy, character assassination is ad hominem...irrelevant, fallacious, and not a little childish, as is the evincing of personal hurt when only one's ideas have been attacked, not one's character. They're both equally bad.

You simply use the word fallacy to avoid rational critisim. It is impossible since accusing someone of the falalcy is itself an underminimg of the person.

Arbitrary rules of this kind are horrible, and only of use for the intelligent who grasp their minute value and use them in a friendly way. Otherwise they are polemical devices of politics; as in almost all contemporary cases.

The proper meaning of the term, by contrast with the political and scholastic "logic" usage, is posative, and derived from Socratic method of using the man or soul to grant premises. The proper meaning must be grasped if there is to be intelligent discussion.

[TheVisionofEr]

More time is wasted on Latin phrases that are not understood by the people who use them than is thinkable to serious people.

Usually the abuse of the phrase ad hominem involves conflating a "personal attack" with a "logical" error, that of genetic falacy. Very commonly it involves immunizing oneself against critisim. The person makes a gross error, or says something flatly false, in order to rhetorically defend themselves, rather than correcting the error, they claim they have been personally attacked.

This problem is vast, and especially contaminats the political sphere with BS.

IT OUGHT TO BE STAMPED OUT IN GRADE SCHOOL.

I agree.

But most good texts on fallacies often tell you that asserting a fallacy by label is not appropriate in context to debate unless others already understand. In fact, when noticing that most fallacies are themselves inductive anyways, they are conditional as fallacies only, not universal. As such, one should spell out why one thinks the fallacy is committed with a counter-example. Different authors also use different labels to define the same fallacy. So asserting the definition of the fallacy you think occurs helps if it is not understood with an example of how you interpret it as such is best. That way, you permit the other to see from your perspective what the error might be and can either correct what you mean or counter why you do not see it as an error in your context.

Usually it is used as a popular phrase had on the authority of general "educated" (read:Philistien) usage. Spelling out the meaning is empty because if any ego or passion is involved, and often even if it isn't, the authority of the common accepted authoritative abuse of the term can't be grasped or overcome.

Most people lack the judgment to grasp why the rule is being used even if they can state and apply reasons in verbal formulas they don't actually understand what is going on. They can't accuretly weigh its value in a discussion. They apply it mechanically and as a polemical device in a counterproductive manner in order to avoid rational critisim and to save face when possessing defects of character and judgment which lead them to be the support of bunk and false reasoning. Many people reason poorly, some can improve with criticism.

[Immanuel Can]

You simply use the word fallacy to avoid rational critisim.

This is both a factual error, and an outstanding demonstration of the ad hominem fallacy as well. To be rational, you'd have to admit that you actually don't know why "I" do anything, and don't know me at all. Moreover, even if you did, it would not suggest that I was wrong simply because "I" said so.

It is impossible since accusing someone of the falalcy is itself an underminimg of the person.

False again. The criticism here is aimed directly at the fallacy, not at you. So there is no ad hominem there. Your argument here is wrong; about you as a person, I have no opinion.

Ad hominem means "to/at the person."

Arbitrary rules...

This one's not arbitrary. It's rational. You'll find it in any list of fallacies.

[Skepdick]

This one's not arbitrary. It's rational. You'll find it in any list of fallacies.

Every arbitrary list of fallacies also contains the fallacy fallacy.

Terribly useful for rejecting fallacious accusations of fallaciousness.

But here's the kicker: is accusing you of committing the fallacy fallacy an ad hominem? What about accusing you of the fallacy fallacy fallacy? And the fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy?

[Immanuel Can]

Every arbitrary list of fallacies ...

Is there, in your understanding, no such thing as a genuine "fallacy"? Are they all merely "arbitrary"? Or are you just indicting some particular ones, that you personally think are "arbitrary"?

[Skepdick]

Is there, in your understanding, no such thing as a genuine "fallacy"? Are they all merely "arbitrary"? Or are you just indicting some particular ones, that you personally think are "arbitrary"?

What is arbitrary is the mapping process.

You mapped TheVisionofEr's argument to the "ad hominem fallacy"
I mapped your mapping to the "fallacy fallacy".

Whose mapping is correct?

[Immanuel Can]

What is arbitrary is the mapping process.

Forget I asked.

[Skepdick]

Forget I asked.

OK. I've forgotten that you asked.

But please address my question: Whose mapping is correct?

[Lacewing]

But in ordinary philosophy, character assassination is ad hominem...irrelevant, fallacious...

It's not irrelevant and fallacious when pointing out that you are lying or distorting statements and context in a dishonorable and slimy fashion which you do quite often. Such tactics are far more disruptive and destructive than someone pointing out what you're doing. Using "pleasing" language does not conceal/transform your intent or effect... just as claiming to be a theist does not conceal/transform anyone. Dishonesty and distortion need to be called out. The fact that you don't like having yours called out is not a legitimate use of the ad hominem cry you love to use to avoid being honest and taking responsibility for your crap and your deceptive egoic games which are easily apparent. Truth is more important and is not an ad hominem.