I'm not getting this. Ad hominum in plain language is insulting the person rather than addressing their argument. Asserting they're wrong because they're a dumbass; and asserting they're wrong and therefore a dumbass seem the same to me. Both are assertions without that quickly jump to insults. Evern if there's a sound argument rather than just assertions, adding the 'dumbass' conclusion is still ad hominum, that moves focus away from the argument, and encourages defensiveness rather than rational debate. Not that I'm always innocent on that count, but I've seen the downside of doing it.
2 comments:
I'm not getting this. Ad hominum in plain language is insulting the person rather than addressing their argument. Asserting they're wrong because they're a dumbass; and asserting they're wrong and therefore a dumbass seem the same to me. Both are assertions without that quickly jump to insults. Evern if there's a sound argument rather than just assertions, adding the 'dumbass' conclusion is still ad hominum, that moves focus away from the argument, and encourages defensiveness rather than rational debate. Not that I'm always innocent on that count, but I've seen the downside of doing it.
It's the reversal of causality. "You're a dumbarse, therefore you're wrong" is different to "You're wrong (for reasons), therefore you're a dumbarse."
Post a Comment