What is ad hom?

[pood]

Argumentum ad hominem, Latin for argument to the person, is an INFORMAL fallacy. A recent post charged an ad hom argument to another poster, whereas no such fallacy was in evidence.

I think it would be good to get straight on this because the rules here properly ban ad hom arguments. But what is ad hom, exactly?

Ad hom is not an insult, not snark, not ridicule. An ad hom fallacy can even be a compliment.

Ad hom is when you reject the conclusion of an argument because of some personal characteristic of the person making the argument. Example:

You say vegetarianism is good.

But Hitler was a vegetarian.

Hitler was a bad person.

Therefore, vegetarianism is bad.

The fallacy is obvious. It doesn’t address the substance of whether vegetarianism is good or bad, only the bad personal characteristics of a particular vegetarian. The conclusion is a non sequitur. The argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

But ad hom can also be a compliment:

You are much too smart to believe the nonsensical argument you are making. Please use your intelligence and reconsider it.

Insult: You are a fuckstick.

Ad hom: You argument is wrong, BECAUSE you are a fuckstick.

Both insults and ad homs are properly banned here, but notice the difference between the two.

The reason ad hom is an INFORMAL fallacy is because sometimes ad hom makes perfect sense. If someone tried to sell me a used car, and that someone was Donald Trump, and he babbled at me that car was the best used car, the greatest used car in history, all the best people say so, blah blah blah, I would refuse to buy the car just BECAUSE Donald Trump is trying to sell it to me. It may even be TRUE that it was the greatest used car in history, but sorry, no, I am not going to believe that because of the personal characteristics of Donald Trump.

 

[Jarhyn]

Argumentum ad hominem, Latin for argument to the person, is an INFORMAL fallacy. A recent post charged an ad hom argument to another poster, whereas no such fallacy was in evidence.

I think it would be good to get straight on this because the rules here properly ban ad hom arguments. But what is ad hom, exactly?

Ad hom is not an insult, not snark, not ridicule. An ad hom fallacy can even be a compliment.

Ad hom is when you reject the conclusion of an argument because of some personal characteristic of the person making the argument. Example:

You say vegetarianism is good.

But Hitler was a vegetarian.

Hitler was a bad person.

Therefore, vegetarianism is bad.

The fallacy is obvious. It doesn’t address the substance of whether vegetarianism is good or bad, only the bad personal characteristics of a particular vegetarian, The conclusion is a non sequitur. The argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

But ad hom can also be a compliment:

You are much too smart to believe the nonsensical argument you are making. Please use your intelligence and reconsider it.

Insult: You are a fuckstick.

Ad hom: You argument is wrong, BECAUSE you are a fuckstick.

Both insults and ad homs are properly banned here, but notice the difference between the two.

The reason ad hom is an INFORMAL fallacy is because sometimes ad hom makes perfect sense. If someone tried to sell me a used car, and that someone was Donald Trump, and he babbled at me that car was the best used car, the greatest used car in history, all the best people say so, blah blah blah, I would refuse to buy the car just BECAUSE Donald Trump is trying to sell it to me. It may even be TRUE that it was the greatest used car in history, but sorry, no, I am not going to believe that because of the personal characteristics of Donald Trump.

More, Ad Hom is in the family of Non Sequitur. "It does not follow from the fact that I am ugly, that I am wrong."

 

[steve_bank]

I don't know if I'd call ad hominem a logical fallacy, it is more a debate strategy or tactic.

When Trump questions how Harris calls herself black or not it is an ad hom attack, attack the person not the issues.

If Trump says Harris calls herself black when she is biracial theretofore her economic policy is wrong, that would be non requiter. Conclussion not connected to premise.

 

[pood]

All ad hom arguments are non sequiturs. The real point I think is that one should not conflate insult and ad hom as if they are the same, nor should one think that any mention of another person or his background or credentials is automatically ad hom. Ad hom can an insult, a complement, or neutral: “You advocate vegetarianism, Yet you eat meat. Therefore, vegetarianism is not a good idea.” It’s both an ad hom (neutral) and a non sequitur. “You are an idiot for being a vegetarian” is both an insult and a non sequitur, but it is not ad hom.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is not an Ad Hom to say "you are a piece of shit and I hate you, therefore fuck you and go to hell", though.

"Fuck you and go to hell" does follow "you are a piece of shit and I hate you".

In fact either follows from the other, generally.

This is what I would say if any member of the Trump family tried to sell me so much as a car.

They can earn something else from me by being anything other than grifting shit-gibbons.

Honestly I really wish one of all of them would decide to cease being that, and call for help unto positive change.

Given the severity of the poo-flinging monkey affect that has plagued their house like a curse, I have my doubts as to whether this is possible.

I have not seen many people so affected ever recover or even much reduce the volume of shit they deposit in their hands before wantonly throwing it at passers-by. I certainly haven't recovered much, try as I may.

Still, I'm not asking anyone to buy a car from me, either.

I am rather insulting at times. That's absolutely true. I do sometimes even tell people off. Once, I even threatened someone.

I just don't usually tell people that makes them right or wrong. It's also not non sequitur to make it from a successful "you are so wrong" to a "that it means you suck".

Oh I see Pood already posted about this...