27 Jan 10
1 edit
Although the Latin of the word narrows the definition to "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person," can it also be construed as a type of cut-to-the-chase preemptive attack used by one party on the underlying thought process assumed to be employed by the second party? Put another way, the first party rejects the ideas superficially put forth by the second party, effectively side-stepping the ideas put forth essentially deeming the ideas moot, since the second party presents them only on the basis of an underlying foundation which has already been rejected by the first party.
Any attack by the first party on the second party is therefore an attack of the rejected foundation more than simply an attack on their person, since the second party has come to represent the foundation in the eyes of the first party... regardless of the topics otherwise in view.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI like hominy.
Although the Latin of the word narrows the definition to "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person," can it also be construed as a type of cut-to-the-chase preemptive attack used by one party on the underlying thought process assumed to be employed by the second party? Put another way, the first party rejects the ideas superficially put ...[text shortened]... the foundation in the eyes of the first party... regardless of the topics otherwise in view.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLot's of people HATE me, it's just the way things are. I might argue the sky is blue, and next a flurry of ATTACKS roll in how I don't know Squat about the sky. They remind me I've shared my info in the public forums about how I am color blind. They tell me I have NO BUSINESS discussing the topic.
Although the Latin of the word narrows the definition to "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person," can it also be construed as a type of cut-to-the-chase preemptive attack used by one party on the underlying thought process assumed to be employed by the second party? Put another way, the first party rejects the ideas superficially put ...[text shortened]... the foundation in the eyes of the first party... regardless of the topics otherwise in view.
Well, I tell you what. Yeah, I don't see the same Blue you see, but it IS blue. YOU GOT THAT?!~
P-
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou missed the whole point of why it's a fallacy. Hint: it's not because it hurts.
Although the Latin of the word narrows the definition to "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person," can it also be construed as a type of cut-to-the-chase preemptive attack used by one party on the underlying thought process assumed to be employed by the second party? Put another way, the first party rejects the ideas superficially put ...[text shortened]... the foundation in the eyes of the first party... regardless of the topics otherwise in view.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by PhlabibitWhy the apostrophe in "Lot's?"
Lot's of people HATE me, it's just the way things are. I might argue the sky is blue, and next a flurry of ATTACKS roll in how I don't know Squat about the sky. They remind me I've shared my info in the public forums about how I am color blind. They tell me I have NO BUSINESS discussing the topic.
Well, I tell you what. Yeah, I don't see the same Blue you see, but it IS blue. YOU GOT THAT?!~
P-
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHInteresting question, Freaky. Brings to mind the historical record of the technically
Although the Latin of the word narrows the definition to "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person," can it also be construed as a type of cut-to-the-chase preemptive attack used by one party on the underlying thought process assumed to be employed by the second party? Put another way, the first party rejects the ideas superficially put ...[text shortened]... the foundation in the eyes of the first party... regardless of the topics otherwise in view.
competent yet emotionally insecure shooting the blameless messenger of any sad
tidings or painful news, as well as the underlying principle that 'opposites attack'.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, I got that it wasn't an actual physical attack. But the premise is that the ideas put forth aren't addressed and instead the attack is made personal and therefore subjective. My rumination is along the lines of thinking that perhaps the attack is actually about ideas nonetheless--- the ideas which aren't being discussed directly.
You missed the whole point of why it's a fallacy. Hint: it's not because it hurts.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMaybe I was a bit cryptic. But my point was that it's called ad hominem not because attacking the character of your interlocuter is "wrong" but because you are not addressing the issue itself.
No, I got that it wasn't an actual physical attack. But the premise is that the ideas put forth aren't addressed and instead the attack is made personal and therefore subjective. My rumination is along the lines of thinking that perhaps the attack is actually about ideas nonetheless--- the ideas which aren't being discussed directly.
I agree that the animosity has (usually) its origins in the difference of ideas, but the "ad hominem" is simply meant that you're directing your argument at the wrong target. Perhaps "ad originem" (or the equivalent correct form in Latin 😵) would convey the meaning more explicitly.