What is an Ad Hominem?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

Have you ever been accused of an ad hominem by a creationist just because you added your foul opinion of creationists at the end of a rebuttal to one of their arguments? Lately I've been arguing with Tiberius and he is now accusing me of ad hominems in the same way many creationists do. We are having the discussion at the Beware of Belivers (Dedicated to Tiberius) thread on the meaning of ad homimens, but I think the discussion merits its own thread.

Here are some excerpts of our discussion:

Again, you are not being charitable, instead you're finding out ways to rule out my definition rather than seeing the obvious exception to my definition. so much for some guy that got accepted to cambridge. lol

Wow. Nice ad hominem. *claps*

an ad hominem is not an insult. an ad hominem is a type of argument. My insult to your character was not an argument or a supporting part of my argument.

example of ad hominem
you should not believe that the earth revolves around the sun because Nicholas Copernicus was an infidel.

explanation: as you can see, the argument uses an irrelevant fact about Nicholas Copernicus to try to discredit his hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun. I did not use any irrelevant derogatory facts about you to try to discredit your arguments.

example of a statement (insult)
Nicholas Copernicus is an infidel. so much for NIcholas copernicus being an infidel.

wiki : "An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]"

---

i forgot to mention that you also used a straw man argument against my position on the thread when accusing me of defending the position that life isn't created from scratch until biologists create matter from nothing .

Tiberius's response:

---

An ad hominem attack isn't just an insult, you are correct. However, it is an ad hominem to attack an opponent personally rather than attacking the argument, which you have done (both in the original thread and here).

I also didn't use a strawman; perhaps it is you who needs the definition, not I. My assertion was a hypothetical, not an argument, nor was it an attack of a position you do not hold. I merely stated that given your current meanderings about the meaning of certain words and their use in science, I wouldn't be surprised to find you asserting the same kinds of things when they do eventually create life "from scratch".

Again, you use ad hominems by attempting to belittle my character again and again in your response. Ad hominem can be used through implication, I hope you realise. The given examples on Wikipedia aren't the definitive examples of how every ad hominem should be. If you attack the character of a person, and by doing so make an implication on their arguments (as you did by referring to 'philosophy and debate' and saying you had 'better post a definition'), you are making an ad hominem.

---

my response:

---

i attack the argument and, just as you do, add a snide remark. PZ Myers attacks an argument and adds his foul opinion of creationists on his blog many a time and theists, just as you are doing, claim he only uses ad hominems (incorrectly too since ad hominems means the whole argument is based on an ad hominem, my statement about 'so much for cambridge' or 'better post a definition' are irrelevant to the argument and people can decide whether or not they feel that way too).

I can entertain (or maybe even agree) that an ad hominem may be used through implication but then I might as well accuse you of ad hominems

the first thing you said on the thread:

Creation of anything from scratch violates the conservation of energy...that is, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It's a pretty simple thing to understand; you just failed to do that.

was very belittling. You're the one that came into the thread assuming I meant 'from scratch' meant 'from nothing' which is obviously against the law of conservation of energy: you came into the thread and distorted my position into a straw man.

Perhaps a bit more thought should go into your posts next time

another ad hominem on your part: you imply that i don't put much thought into my posts. I do, but you refuse to be charitable and you continue to treat me as if i was stupid.

---

what have you experienced with ad hominems? has anyone ever incorrectly accused you of an ad hominem? what do you think about implicit ad homimens? is there a spectrum of ad hominems?