From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 17:42:05 MST
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.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 06:58:43 MST