ad hominem (II)

(This is not really a piece in my argument, but i fear creeping confusion in relation to the topic. So i thought i best say something about it.)

Ad hominem ... three kinds:

I should clean-up some verbiage on the phrase "ad hominem". What we might call the generic ad hominem move has a two or three major forms: the fallacy, the political element and the straight attack or generic form. I am concerned here with the first two, the last pretty much includes just "everything else".

The ad hominem fallacy proper is a specific rhetorical device. It has the purpose of engageing and defeating an argument rhetorically, rather than analytically.

The ad hominem i'm calling political is also a rhetorical device. But this device refuses to engage and defeat an argument and instead it creates counter-accusations. It more or less "changes the subject" rather than answer the question.

The generic ad hominem is pretty much any personal attack during a dialogue. The goal is most often humor, but it can just be a lashing out reaction.

Examples:
Classic Fallacy -
Mr X: Mr. Z. had an interesting take on that topic. He said ... [whatever]
Mr Y: Mr. Z. is nothing but an actor. What does he know?
Mr Y has chosen to take on the credentials rather than the argument.

Political Power -
Mr X: I just don't believe we can afford another 8 billion dollars for Iraq.
Mr Y: What, you don't support the troops?!?
Mr Y has chosen to play the guilt card. If you prefer ...
Mr X: I just don't believe we can afford another 8 billion dollars for education.
Mr Y: What, you believe only the wealthy deserve a good education?
The idea is the same, invoke shame.

The generic case is the landscape of the Ann Coulters and Al Frankens of the world. They are really speaking to the choir and making personal attacks while doing so. But any personal attack designed to make oneself feel better by tearing down, or whatnot, would qualify.


My claim about the Tom Terrible piece linked to by Molecular Revolution (see ad hominem, i - below) is that he is engaged in either the first or the third form of the ad hominem ... depending on where you believe he stands on the Terry Shiavo case. I typed "ad hominem fallacy" because i took from context that he believes the case has already had due process. Within that context, he takes a quote from the President, who believes otherwise, and then attacks the President's consistancy rather than the due-process argument put forth by the quote.
A few posts later, on re-reading, i could definately see where one might believe that TT was not arguing about the due process part of the case at all but was just using the quote and the inconsistency of the President on right-to-life issues to attack the President in general. (Specifically, not to win an argument on due-process or to get him to shut up.) And, as it is TT's web log, very likely he is talking to the choir.
However one might take is quote and reply, thoogh, the fact that he prefices the quote with ... how did it go ... 'out ever lying Commander and Chief chimed in with this ...'. That definately qualifies as a generic class ad hominem assault.

I take it that when Vernaye is taking me to task for an ad hominem violation he is speaking about the second, political, form. I can only think that he means that my "ad hominem fallacy" notation was intended to make Natalie feel bad about liking the TT post and linking it to her page. I don't want to get into guessing at his intentionality, though, so i'll let him confirm or deny that if he cares to, or just let it stand as is if it has already been beaten too badly.


Anyway ... i hope that cleans up the ad hominem talk for those who do not feel at home in the subject matter.