Recently, Kent from Minnesota wrote me.
Hey, Mark, what's the deal with these standard responses that your commenters always quote. Aren't those all ad hominem?
Yes, Kent they are. It should also be pointed out that ad hominem is part of the genetic fallacy family of logical fallacies. Kent also sent along this link which I found to be most helpful.
ad hominem:
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
And...
genetic:
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.
Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.
Click here for more illustrative examples of how the TSM commenters consistently use ad hom and genetic fallacy. As to why they do it, they are obviously insecure about their own arguments. This explains why they only criticize and never make any of their own, living in a constant state of terror that they might be "proved wrong."
What a sad and pathetic way to live your life...
3 comments:
Hey made up Kent and dense Mark,
The standard responses are a listing of Mark's arguments. Ergo IT IS an 'attack' upon his arguments.
Now, if his arguments can be defined in such a way as to have a listing of such, and if he uses them so often that they can be called standard then his own arguments have become HIS GENETIC RESPONSES.
Just because Mark's own responses have become genetic doesn't make an attack upon them genetic. And just because his responses are genetic doesn't mean pointing out that he used one is an ad hom.
The whole concept of logical fallacies seems just a bit beyond the mental capacities of dear old Markadelphia, bless his little heart. He can mouth the words, but is unable to use them correctly any more often than pure chance would indicate. BTW, Pseudo-Kent and Markadelphia, this is not an example of an ad hominem. This is simply descriptive of Markadelphia's arguments, as per GD.
When someone is actively lying and someone calls him a liar because of that, that is not an ad hominem. Now if I argued that no one should listen to Mark's arguments pro-nuclear power because he is a liar, that would be an ad hominem. Just because someone is a well-known liar doesn't mean that everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie. It would suggest, though, that corroboration be sought, and it would be most unwise to depend _solely_ upon a liar's word on anything. That isn't an ad homineme, either. Just some clues for the perpetually clueless.
The sad thing is M you aren't even creative enough to transcend the catalog.
Post a Comment