From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 06:04:45 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Harvey pointed out a distinction between name-calling and ad hominem:
> Is it really useful to attempt anymore to distinguish between
> name-calling and ad hominem?
I think you're right to question this distinction.
If the name-calling occurs in the context even of a valid argument, it is
still, imo, appropriate to consider it ad hominem because of the additional
*implied* argument. For example if I argue that you are wrong to believe in
the Easter Bunny, and prove the implausibility of the Easter Bunny with
valid argument A, and then also call you an idiot for believing in the
Easter Bunny, my name-calling can be seen as an additional implied ad
hominem argument B. Argument A may stand up to the test of a valid argument
but argument B is still there and invalid.
Arguments do not always need to expressed. As above, they can be implied. If
I spit on the sidewalk and some passerby sees me and calls me a bum then he
is making an implied ad hominem argument even if no other words come from
his mouth.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 06:25:27 MDT