Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother
I spoke what I have to. It's up to you to hear or not.
Pardon my ignorance. I have to look up Ad Hominem from wikipedia. I don't think that's what I intended. But anyway, interesting definition, especially the last part...
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.
However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.
|
Correct alb.
When you say that the person you are debating is delusional , that is an ad hominem attack having nothing to do with the argument itself. You are attacking the person, not the argument. Other ad hominem include but not limited to saying someone is dishonest, unintelligent, a liar, devious, bad motives, etc. all intended to dismiss the person rather than create a compelling argument.
You may think those things about someone, and you may even say them but they are fallacies in argument. When fallacies in argumentum are used it often indicates that the person advancing them has run out of convincing points in an argument. In other words, unable to convince others of their point of view they resort to attacking the motives, intelligence, truthfulness, or sanity of their opponents. Thinking their arguments were compelling yet still ineffective it must then be a problem with the person who remains unconvinced. Therein lies the fallacy. When you charged me with being delusional, though you may believe it, it was a fallacy in your argument and remains such until you can first prove I am delusional or was at some point in the past. My not accepting your argument is in and of itself insufficient to establish my being delusional.
Hope that helps.
Drake