A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."
B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem.
He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he
tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises,
he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of
an *ad homonym* argument.)
Nice to see a good explanation (if a little painstaking) of this. "Ad hominem" is fast becoming the new Godwin ...
Having said that, I hope that people don't think this gives everyone license to abuse each other. Regardless of whether it's part of your argument, insulting or ridiculing someone rarely helps progress an argument forward.
Another term that is overused is the "straw man argument" comeback. It's not Latin, but people still viciously cling to it.
Wherever there is a misunderstanding between two different sides, the defensive cry "straw man!" is heard either to compensate for a lack of ability (or motivation) to explain a point of view or to willfully ignore obvious implications of an argument.
If you look hard enough, you can find a straw man in almost every argument. Although it's important to find these misinterpretations and correct them, it usually does no good to yell "straw man!" at the other guy as part of your rebuttal.
There are some cases where a straw man argument is purposely used, usually to attack someone else's beliefs or philosophy, and therefore I think it's appropriate to bring up that term (if you're up to feeding trolls).
Next time you feel like reaching for your "straw man" defense, try to understand how and why you may have been misinterpreted, and take the opportunity to explain yourself better.
This argument would be interesting if the author wasn't an idiot and had a grasp of what sarcasm is.
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."
B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.
According to this guy, the only ad hominem argument is invoking ad hominem. Of course, he is using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to prove his point saying that the other arguments aren't "true" ad hominem.
He only points out that many arguments that point out ad hominem arguments are themselves ad hominem. He doesn't restrict ad hominem to that one case, though.
And if you didn't suck at reading comprehension, I wouldn't need to point that out...
I was just kidding about the reading comprehension. Mostly.
Here's an example he gave of an ad hominem attack that doesn't involve calling the other person's attack ad hominem:
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."
and here's another (from the Nick Naylor school of rhetoric):
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."
Yeah, I get it. It's an article about ad hominem, so the joking insults come out.
The first may not actually be ad hominem. If A actually doesn't have a good grasp of logic, then there is no attack just a statement of fact. And he actually says the opposite earlier, but with the statements reversed (This can't be true, you don't have a good grasp of logic.).
And the second is argument from authority, not ad hominem.
Lastly, ad hominem doesn't always address the argument. In fact ad hominem is an abandonment of argument in favor of abuse. You start appealing to people's emotion by painting a negative image of the person.
He said: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, SO this can't be true."
Which is the same as saying: "This can't be true, BECAUSE you've never had a good grasp of logic."
The problem with ad hominem attacks is a broken clock can be correct twice a day or more. So saying the clock is broken does not necessarily imply that it's wrong now just that it has been wrong in the past and will probably be wrong in the future.
When parsing arguments look for words like and, or, because, so, thus, etc as they are the foundations of arguments. You can add a lot of meaningless drivel around the core argument but as soon as someone starts tossing those words around they are probably trying to use logic. His point is the way an attack is connected to the argument determines if calling something ad hominem discredits the argument.
PS: People sometimes add an ad hominem attack as part of other more rational statements, so IMO attacking the person even alongside a rational argument is still an ad hominem attack even if it is not used to directly attack their argument. However, simply calling part of what someone says an ad hominem attack does not destroy the rest of the argument if it's not directly linked to it. It's like a defense attorney that counters the DNA evidence but ignores the video tape and the confession is going to fail.
The problem being is that not having a good grasp of logic can cause you to reach wrong conclusions. It can be a direct cause. In which case, it is a valid point to bring up as it supports your argument.
Knowing the cause is useful, but to discredit someone's argument you need to find the mistake. Think million monkey's typing for a million years randomly recreating Calculus. The source is dumb but it works.
