From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 11:40:44 MDT
> (gts <gts_2000@yahoo.com>):
>
> A valid argument would be something like "Excuse me sir, but I noticed you
> spitting on the sidewalk. I feel obliged to inform you that many people find
> that offensive. If you want to be socially accepted then you should refrain
> from spitting on the sidewalk."
>
> Instead he is saying "You're a bum because you believe it's okay to spit on
> the sidewalk." That is a pure ad hominem argument.
Actually, it's almost the exact opposite. An argument ad hominem would
be "That person is a bum. He is spitting on the sidewalk. Therefore,
spitting on the sidewalk is bad." An argument ad hominem is to reach a
conclusion by taking the nature of a person supporting that conclusion
as evidence. Your example starts with the conclusion, and uses that to
make a judgment about the person. That's may or may not be a good thing
to do, but it's certainly not argument ad hominem, as that term is
understood in basic philosophy.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 11:52:22 MDT