From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 10:41:02 MDT
Harvey pointed out a distinction between name-calling and ad hominem:
John K Clark wrote,
> I demonstrate to the best of my ability that topic A is
> untrue, I sincerely believe that it is idiotic to believe
> topic A, Mr.X nevertheless believes in topic A, I call
> Mr. X an idiot. I have addressed the topic and I don't
> see where the fraud and deception is, after all,
> believing in idiotic things is what idiots do.
There is no ad hominem in your example. You are merely name-calling.
Ad hominem would have been if you DIDN'T demonstrate that topic A is untrue.
If, instead, you merely asserted that because Mr. X is an idiot, we know his
claim about topic A is untrue, that would have been ad hominem.
See the difference? Name-calling is not the same as ad hominem. Ad hominem
is name-calling instead of refuting the evidence. If you refute the
evidence correctly and then call the person names, that is not ad hominem.
But there is an interesting discussion of what "ad hominem" is evolving
into at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
Is it really useful to attempt anymore to distinguish between
name-calling and ad hominem?
As dictionary.com wrote:
The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings
of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem
attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people
who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds
this sentence acceptable.
;-) One wonders if "the Panel" also agreed with this sentence!
The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal
attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in "It isn't in
the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this
personal, ad hominem way." This use is acceptable to 65 percent of
the Panel.
In any case, it certainly strikes me that people resort to saying
that their adversaries don't reason well, or are stupid, or uneducated,
or mean-spirited when their arguments are weak.
Vastly more complicated is whether or not to call someone a fascist,
or unpatriotic, or anti-American, or a communist, or a jingoist, an
imperialist, etc., because those are not empty of meaning.
My working hypothesis: if the target would not agree that the term
describes him or her, then usage of the term *MUST* be accompanied
by analytical argument attempting to make the case.
Lee
Friday 4-11-2003 Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> In the tradition of E-prime, instead of saying that "the KKK is scum", it
> would be more precise to say, "The feelings I have about the KKK are the
> same as the feelings I have about scum." Such a statement cannot be used to
> argue. Conversely, no one can argue against such a self-proclamation either.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 03 2003 - 10:51:46 MDT