What is an Ad Hominem?

[Violet]

An Ad Hom is when you either attack or compliment, etc., the person rather than their argument in a debate/discussion (which has nothing to do with the argument itself) basically.

EvF

Close... It is when a conclusion is drawn from some attribute of a person (who made an assertion), rather than when a conclusion is drawn from other parts of the argument. The person is also a part of the argument, ie: If a man has been to the moon, and he asserts that it is indeed made of green cheese... the argument will be seen as stronger than if an insane person were to assert that the moon is just a big rock... it need not even be 'right'. Thus: the person who makes an argument has everything to do with it.

It is when the attribute from which the conclusion is drawn has no 'sound' relation to the argument that it is fallacious. Take for example: A candle will light a dark room, therefore that glass of water I just drank is filled with poison. While it is not necessarily untrue (especially if we are incorrect about how a candle's ability to light a dark room relates to the glass of water being filled with poison... as might occur if it was by candlelight in a dark room that the poison was made)... it remains fallacious unless it relates to the situation at hand (I am implying it to be true. There is another definition of 'fallacy' that relates only to validity, of course, that I am excluding for the time being, as ad hominem arguments are by necessity valid). An ad hominem argument is not necessarily fallacious, as I noted above: the argument of the person making the claim is sound if it relates to the conclusion (however sillily, wrongly, laughably, gaily, whathaveyouy).

---

An ad hominem is a kind of logical fallacy. It consists of trying to discredit a person's argument by trying to discredit the person. It isn't the same thing at all as simply insulting the person.

By way of illustration, lets say that I go completely insane, and become a supporter of young earth creationism. I continue to contribute to atheist forums.org from my bed in the psychiatric ward; my posts are deeply unhinged.

2 possible responses:

1. Caeacilian is certifiably insane. That makes his arguments in favour of yec wrong.

2. Caecilian's arguments for yec are wrong because of x, y, and z. And btw, Caecilian, you're a fucking fruitbat.

The first response is an ad hominem. Its fallacious to say that my creationist views are wrong because I'm insane. The second response is not an ad hominem- its just an insult.

It actually may not be fallacious to say that your creationist views are wrong because you are insane... but only if one has defined said words in a way so as to make it true that your creationist views are wrong because you are insane. But it is indeed an ad hominem argument

The latter part of 2 is indeed just an insult... though the former sentence's arguments x, y, and z could all be ad hominem arguments

Strictly speaking, I don't think that either Adrian or TFS have used ad hominems. But they have been trading insults. Which isn't very productive.

Bolded, because I think you are right, and that this deserves more emphasis. By the way, Caecillian: you're a human!