# Ad Homeniem help **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 29, 2016, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157 "2016-07-29T00:47:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/21 "2016-07-29T16:27:08Z")
[http://forbiddentruth.8k.com/childabuse.html](http://forbiddentruth.8k.com/childabuse.html) Would this also be considered non sequitur ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/22 "2016-07-29T16:45:11Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > An argument does not need to be one of the logical fallacies to be wrong. I mean the recent link I posted has him trying to advocate some batshit child policy. I can’t even make sense of it. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/23 "2016-07-29T16:48:53Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > I mean the recent link I posted has him trying to advocate some batshit child policy. I can’t even make sense of it. Then stop reading them. Especially stop telling us about them. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/24 "2016-07-29T17:13:47Z")
You should never feel obligated to read nonsense. Stop now, say to yourself “well, that was an interesting glimpse into the mind of a madman,” and move on to more entertaining hobbies. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/25 "2016-07-29T17:18:49Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Then stop reading them. Especially stop telling us about them. But it’s like some morbid curiosity, and some feeling that there might be truth. Although advocating a test to become a parent as well as mandatory child inspection every year (to prevent his version of “child abuse”). Not to mention giving children at the age of 8 the chance to leave their caregivers if they choose ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/26 "2016-07-29T17:26:57Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > An argument does not need to be one of the logical fallacies to be wrong. The logical fallacy that something must be a logical fallacy to be wrong deserves a name, too. _Argumentum ad fallacia_ is it? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/27 "2016-07-29T17:49:01Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > Parts on order? What does that mean? A few bits short of a byte Played too much without a helmet Due a brain-tax rebate Kangaroo loose in the top paddock One nipple short of an udder A few waves short of a shipwreck Strong like bear, smart like rock The wheel is still spinning but the hamster is dead A few Freedom Fries short of a Happy Meal The village want him back Takes him two hours to watch 60 minutes His biscuits ain’t quite done, bless his heart Cheese done slipped off his cracker The lights are flashing but there’s no train coming From the shallow end of the gene pool A few Bradys short of a bunch ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/28 "2016-07-29T17:49:22Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > Parts on order? What does that mean? A few French fries shy of a Happy Meal. A couple sandwiches short of a picnic. As **Exapno Mapcase** it means he’s crazy. > [@](#): > > But also any dissenting view is dismissed as “you aren’t smart enough to understand”, is that a fallacy? What about not willing to debate said topics? It’s not a logical fallacy, just a refusal to debate. It might be true, but it would have to be demonstrated before it would be valid. It would IMO be valid to say to the author of the article to which you linked “you are too crazy to debate”, and again IMO it would be a valid objection, based on my examination of the said article. But as mentioned, the author would never accept it as valid. > [@](#): > > But it’s like some morbid curiosity, and some feeling that there might be truth. I certainly understand the first part about morbid curiosity. After all, I’m a Doper, and I love a good Holocaust denial or 911 Truther or moon landing hoax thread. But that is mostly to see my fellow Dopers and their hard-headed mix of scientific reasoning and entertaining snark that makes those threads a delight. And there might be truth buried in even the most bizarre ravings. Is it worth the effort of trying to pick it out? Decide for yourself - if you decide it isn’t, don’t bother. For instance, the child abuse one you also linked to? Too long as well as too weird. A little of that kind of thing can be entertaining, a lot is creepy. It is not so much a non sequitur - just a long rant of unsubstantiated nonsense. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/29 "2016-07-29T17:51:59Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > The logical fallacy that something must be a logical fallacy to be wrong deserves a name, too. _Argumentum ad fallacia_ is it? The logical fallacy to which the Forbidden Truth guy is subject is _ucking-fay uts-nay._ Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/30 "2016-07-29T18:06:40Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > But it’s like some morbid curiosity, and some feeling that there might be truth. Start a blog. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/31 "2016-07-29T20:08:10Z")
Yeah, it just seems like nonsense really. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/32 "2016-07-29T23:11:23Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Start a blog. What would that accomplish? Also what about that stuff about the children? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2016, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/33 "2016-07-30T00:49:38Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > What would that accomplish? > > Also what about that stuff about the children? For one thing, you’re in General Questions, for questions with factual answers. It is not the place to discuss crazy Internet sites no matter what the subject. You seem to have no interest in discussing the sites either, just bringing them to our attention. The best place to do that is your own blog. ---
**Author:** ![dreamregent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6f9a4e/32.png) [@dreamregent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dreamregent)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/34 "2016-07-30T01:05:19Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > My only problem with what you’re saying is this:That’s only true in a very etymological sense. However, we’re not speaking Latin, we’re using English-language terms of art, so the definition you propose is irrelevant. It is not “only true in a very etymological sense”. It is literally true. The term _ad_ is a preposition (i.e. to, about, etc.) and _hominem_ is a reference to a person. Hence, it literally means _to_ or _about a person_. While it’s true people often use this as an abbreviation for argumentum ad hominem (i.e. _argument about a person_), this does not change the fact that any label applied to a person is ad hominem. This is not necessarily a negative thing. Suppose someone writes limericks. If you call that person a poet, you are literally speaking ad hominem (i.e. to or about the person). > [@Derleth](#): > > Whether calling someone names is a non sequitur is, itself, irrelevant as long as those insults don’t form one of the premises of the actual argument. You should decouple the concept of applying labels from insults. The application of labels is not necessarily scornful or abusive. Also, I did not say “calling someone names is a non sequitur”. In the examples cited above (e.g. crazy person), that would have been the case due to a lack of sufficient premises. However, when such labels are applied in a manner where the argument is both coherent and sound, there can be no logical objection. Note the scenario I used in post #13. If Ann actually called Bob a bigot, yes that would be ad hominem but it would be both coherent and sound because Bob is, in fact, a bigot and that can be conclusively proven because his expression clearly meets the lexical definition of bigotry. However, in debate, I find it is usually more effective to eviscerate ideation rather than people. > [@Derleth](#): > > Finally, “crazy” isn’t a formally-defined term. This term has been “formally-defined” by english dictionaries for 300 years, at least since Nathan Bailey’s 1721 effort. > [@Derleth](#): > > Anyone can call anyone else “crazy” and nobody can say they’re unambiguously wrong. If you aren’t stating premises to support your conclusion, you’ll be running into another logical fallacy: burden of proof (e.g. proof by assertion). Hence, any way you look at it, this is going to be logically fallacious. It is also a logical fallacy if you fail to consider other possible explanations. Suppose the person is merely playing devil’s advocate or is just having fun by posting outrageous things. You have no means to determine whether any of that is the case. While you can certainly assault the coherence and soundness of these posts, the posts themselves do not prove someone is mentally deranged. Note the difference between determining whether someone is a bigot and whether they are crazy. A bigot is merely a person who expresses bigotry. Hence, the mere expression is the only evidence which is required to make this determination. In contrast, a crazy person is someone who is mentally deranged. You require some means to examine the internal operations of that person’s mind in order to determine whether he is, in fact, crazy. Short of an extensive body of evidence or a direct face-to-face evaluation, this will be very difficult to prove. > [@Derleth](#): > > And, ultimately, whether someone actually is schizophrenic or is merely deriving some obscure pleasure from posting word salad or paranoid rants to the Internet doesn’t really matter: If all you have is the text, all you can reason about is the persona which created the text. I think this depends greatly on the extent of the writings and whether you have other sources of evidence which speak to the matter. A couple of posts on a blog can hardly be deemed sufficient to draw such a conclusion. > [@Derleth](#): > > Similarly, in real life, if all you have is the observed behaviors, all you can reason about is the persona which generates those behaviors. In neither case do you have access to what’s behind the eyes. You have access to far more evidence when the person is directly observable. In particular, you can try to speak to the person and see if he can be reasoned with. Drawing a conclusion that someone is crazy is far more likely to be a reasonable conclusion if you can interface with the person face-to-face. > [@Riemann](#): > > Er, wut? This is a novel approach to fighting my hypothetical, but we’re not discussing crimefighting, Batman. > > I gave “criminality” as a hypothetical irrelevant trait for the author of the OP’s article, one that would be irrelevant to the merits of the article. My point being that _any_ way you mentioned that criminality in denigrating the article would be _ad hominem_, because it’s irrelevant. It does not hinge (as you claimed) on the whether the technical grammatical structure of the irrelevant denigration means you’re targeting the author’s words as opposed to the author himself. The _ad hominem_ refers to the nature of the fallacious argument, not the syntax of a sentence. Actually, the composition of the argumentum ad hominem does, in fact, hinge on whether you’re “targeting the author’s words as opposed to the author himself.” Indeed, the term _argumentum ad hominem_ directly translates to _argument about a person_ as opposed to _argument about ideation_. > [@Riemann](#): > > This is your mistake. That’s not what _ad hominem_ means at all. It’s short for _[Argumentum ad hominem](http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html)_, a specific logical fallacy. While I’m aware of how some people talk but I can talk too. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2016, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/35 "2016-07-30T01:37:54Z")
I am attempting to discuss them, to the best of my ability ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/36 "2016-07-30T01:54:40Z")
> [@dreamregent](#): > > It is not “only true in a very etymological sense”. It is literally true. The term _ad_ is a preposition (i.e. to, about, etc.) and _hominem_ is a reference to a person. Hence, it literally means _to_ or _about a person_. While it’s true people often use this as an abbreviation for argumentum ad hominem (i.e. _argument about a person_), this does not change the fact that any label applied to a person is ad hominem. You are spelling out your mistaken belief in the [etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy). The literal translation or ancient meaning is not the current meaning. **Transpire** Literal translation = _to breathe across_ Current meaning = _to happen_ _ **Ad hoc** _ Literal translation = _for this_ Current meaning = _improvised, for a particular purpose only_ _ **Ad hominem** _ Literal translation = _against or about the person_ Current meaning = _specifically, irrelevant denigration of a person in order to discredit their ideas_ ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2016, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/37 "2016-07-30T02:12:42Z")
What if the person refuses to debate? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2016, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/38 "2016-07-30T10:54:47Z")
Then you wipe the dust of that website from your feet and move on. Life is too short to waste it talking to a brick wall, despite the current example. ---
**Author:** ![dreamregent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6f9a4e/32.png) [@dreamregent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dreamregent)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2016, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/39 "2016-07-30T13:04:40Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > You are spelling out your mistaken belief in the [etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy). > > The literal translation or ancient meaning is not the current meaning. You don’t think so? This is not a matter of universal intersubjective agreement. See the **[Oxford Dictionary](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ad-hominem)** of U.S. English, which offers the following definition: > [@](#): > > 2 Relating to or associated with a particular person Hence, my claims are objectively well-founded. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2016, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157/40 "2016-07-30T14:19:55Z")
> [@dreamregent](#): > > See the **[Oxford Dictionary](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ad-hominem)** of U.S. English, which offers the following definition… Hence, my claims are objectively well-founded. Read that dictionary more carefully. It does, as you say, mention another semi-archaic usage (one that you will notice is not mentioned in other dictionaries): > [@](#): > > 1. Relating to or associated with a particular person: > [AS ADVERB]: the office was created _ad hominem_ for Fenton However, that semi-archaic usage had another narrow and highly specific meaning, similar to _ad hoc_. For example, a CEO wishes to involve a particular talented person Mr Jones in the running of her company, but no suitable position currently exists. She therefore creates a new position specifically for Mr Jones, say “Strategic Opportunity Consultant”, on an _ad hoc_ basis. One might then have said (when that semi-archaic usage was current): “The position of Strategic Opportunity Consultant was created ad _hominem_ for Mr Jones.” In any event, it’s quite clear that, in the context of this thread, nobody intended this other semi-archaic meeting. If you really think that _ad hominem_ can mean “to a person” in a _general_ sense then show me examples in the current corpus of it being used that general way. There are none, because when speaking English we don’t just intersperse random Latin words as alternatives to English words to mean exactly the same thing as the English words. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-homeniem-help/761157.md?page=3)