Ad Hominem

[matthewott]

This particular Latin phrase has found itself center stage in recent weeks. Not that I'm questioning the intelligence level of my brethren here, I just want to make sure we are all on the same page with this, because these ad hominem attacks keep coming and I want you all to be able to recognize them. Additionally, I want you to see and understand that Bill's use of the phrase has been correct every time he has written or said it, and the others who counter Bill's arguments with the same phrase are just being parrots with no counter-argument.

Definition: Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

With that being said, allow me to give you a recent example of an ad hominem attack against Clifton Emahiser:

When I recently heard him say, and you having to correct, that he had been speaking to his Wife that afternoon, knowing she has been sadly departed for some years, my already grave doubts about his declining level of compos mentis were confirmed.

This is a ploy to discredit ANYTHING Clifton has to say on ANY given argument anymore! There are more examples of same such attacks, regarding this CRITICAL doctrinal "argument" with Eli which has caused this "schism", but what is the point? This person did not present ANY evidence to take up the argument against Clifton in a scholarly and GENTLEMANLY manner, but employed the age old ad hominem attack to COMPLETELY DISCREDIT Clifton as if to make his entire argument with Eli completely groundless! Shame on you!

In conclusion, I found this link to an excellent little essay on "Ad Hominem" which I highly suggest everyone reads. Hopefully this sheds more light on proper exegesis and scholarship: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

[Vandal]

AND YOU ARE LYNCHING NEGROES.

Thanks for the technical info Matt and for keeping the examination scholarly in scope. I thought some of you might like learning about a racially-tense logical fallacy that is actually called, "And you are lynching negroes."


AND YOU ARE LYNCHING NEGROES is another logical fallacy that is a collateral ad hominem attack that diverts from the facts at issue of debate by accusing the other side of similar or even worse acts compared to the ones in question.

For example, if I were to catch a man beating someone to death and say, "You can't do that" he might reply, "And you are a racist negro-killer" as if that ad hominem would invalidate me from questioning his act or argument.

Eli actually used this logical fallacy to attack Bill and Clifton by insinuating they wanted to "exterminate" the "other races" when they rightfully argued that Eli instigated the "schism." He did it in several other ways but I don't want to devote too much of my brain to commentary on this "schism." I got work to do and studying to sink in to.