Winston Churchill was the master of the Ad Hominem attack. Some of his quotes are at the end of this post.
The Ad Hominem attack is a logical fallacy where one person argues by attacking a characteristic of the person making the claim.
Characteristics have nothing to do with truth or validity of an argument.
Not all Ad Hominem arguments are bad. There are many legitimate ways of using these. Today, we focus on the bad because there is too much of it going on.
A basic Ad Hominem:
Frank: "The job market sucks."
Frank's Wife: "You don't have a job so you can't talk about the job market!"
The fact that Frank does not have a job and watches porn does not disqualify him from expressing his opinion that the job market sucks.
The abusive Ad Hominem attack attacks an opponent's qualities or other irrelevant characteristic in an attempt to deny the veracity or the quality of his or her statements.
Domestic abusers and bullies use abusive Ad Hominem attacks.
Tea Party Candidate: "We in the Tea Party want our liberty and freedom from government. Blah blah blah blah!"
Human Being: "Two sperms later and your momma and daddy could have made you one of us. Since you are not one of us, I don't believe you!"
The insult about the Tea Party Candidate may be true, but it does not prove that the blathering idiot was lying.
Also, labeling the opponent as a human being is an ad hominem attack. It points out that Tea Party Candidates are not human beings, so we should not believe anything they say.
In other words, the Tea Party candidate made a claim. The Human Being attacked a characteristic and not the argument, if there ever was an argument.
Another type of Ad Hominem attack is the "Credential Fallacy". Who remember the old days at OS when a certain MD would spray credential fallacies all over us?
"You do not have a medical degree, therefore you are not qualified to talk about genital warts or butt wipes."
The Ad Feminam attack will get someone kicked in the nuts! It is used to dismiss arguments made by women based on female characteristics or bias against women.
"What? You got PMS or something?"
The Ad Homines attack is the same nasty bit of work. It dismisses the arguments of men based on their male characteristics or on bias against men.
"Don't believe a thing that men say! They are only trying to get you to do the underwater wiggle with them!"
Attacking the Messenger is another type of Ad Hominem attack.
"The GAO is a communist front!"
Tue Quoque Ad Hominem attacks will make you look, sound and act real smart. If you can pronounce it properly, then launch into one of these, you will scare the hell out of an ignorant buffooon. You might even sound like a lawyer!
This attack points out that the speaker said or did something that was inconsistent with her argument.
Debbi Lee: "Hey! Lisa doesn't care about losing weight. I just caught her eating a whole 'Gut Buster Special' at Joe's diner!"
Shaquanda: "But you eat the 'Gut Buster Special' at least twice a week and you weigh 300 pounds!"
The fact that Debbie Lee does the same thing as Lisa does not disprove anything. Her argument was that glugging down a 'Gut Buster Special' is proof that Lisa does not care about losing weight.
Guilt by association exploits the similarities between a person's argument and another person or group's arguments.
When the opponent does not like the other person or group, then anyone who expresses similar views or makes similar arguments is ripe for a real word whipping.
The argument is wrong or untrue simply because the speaker sounds like or pals around with a person or a group we despise.
Tea Party politicians have comandeered the words "liberty" and "freedom" and associated them with the group.
People who can't stand the Tea Party or its agenda will often ignore the rest of a statement whenever they hear or read "freedom" and "liberty". This is because they are now associated with the Tea Party and nothing good follows them anyway.
The words have nothing to do with the argument that is being made even when the Tea Party's arguments can stink up a room and clear everyone out.
Dog Whistle Ad Hominem attacks.
This category refers to statements or actions that are understood only by those who "get" the statements or actions. The words will resonate with some people, but will pass over those who do not know what they mean.
Mitt Romney attended the NAACP function, but spent his time on dog whistle ad hominem attacks that were intended for the more racist elements of society who were not even in the room.
Dog whistle ad hominem attacks use words and phrases that resonate with one group, but are not recognized by others. These are also referred to as "code words and phrases", "underground code", or "racist code words".
To counter a dog whistle attack, simply ask the speaker what the statement means. Good luck with getting an answer.
To summarize:
Begin with the statement, claim, argument in favor, argument against, or proposal.
Look for the evidence or proof or look for the disclaimer that the statement is "opinion".
To properly attack the argument, attack the evidence, logic, support or proof.
Or, show where there is no evidence, support or proof.
To make an Ad Hominem attack, focus on things that have nothing to do with the argument.
Great Ad Hominem attacks in history:
"He is a sheep in sheep’s clothing,” and “He is a modest man with much to be modest about.”
---Winston Churchill
When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.
---Cicero
"Sure, he's an asshole. Sure he's dead. Sure, I'm just imagining that he's talking. That doesn't stop the bastard from being absolutely right."
---Dwight, Sin City: The Big Fat Kill
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
---William Shakespeare
And oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse.
---William Shakespeare
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.---Winston Churchill
See? Ad Hominem attacks are sometimes good and useful; they are sometimes useless and abusive. Let us get better at using these techniques in an appropriate and kick ass fashion.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
nilesite
Brie aka Barbara K
Gerald Andersen
Brazen Princess
Ben Sen
Alan Nothnagle
Salon.com
Comments
I worry about some of the people who argue abusively. Even if they had a point, many are not interested in knowing it because they sound like a hound baying at the moon. All racket if you are trying to sleep.
The thing is, in many places on the net, the people who are commenting and arguing and adept at these kinds of attacks enjoy doing it often anonymously. That is what is really most disturbing.
If you had an opinion, then go ahead and express it, stand by it, back it up with facts to increase your credibility and above all, take the credit for it. If you don't some will dismiss you in hand because you won't even use your own name. My experience has been that there are a number of blowhards around who are amazingly brave and downright mean. In fact if they weren't so busy hurting people, or attacking them and trying to hurt them, they would be ridiculous. I sometimes wonder if they have jobs, responsibilities, drinking problems, personality disorders or are just bored. So much good is out there and then you find people who just are like pond scum, trying to get more attention for themselves. Amazing. Thanks for writing this. Maybe some people will be interested in what it means.
Sheila, that is always my hope when writing something like this, even if I get disappointed in my expectations.
You wrote the equivalent of an entire post and made a compelling argument for taking the abuse out of the experience of writing in the public forums.
I grew up with ad hominem and other abuse, and the most infuriating thought that I have to this day is how I was not even allowed to talk about my own job or life experiences. Everything was cut down before I could finish saying anything.
One time, someone jumped in and defended me. The abusive assholes acted as if they'd been slapped! They actually expected the person to back them up.
I have to admit, however, to using ad hominem when attacking fake forum posts by the Koch Brother's flunkies. They are all over the web, they are persistent, and they get people to believe the lies.
I think that some people poke at the rest of us with obnoxious titles and content. They want to draw the abuse so they can start the drama.
One bit of news is that the trolls have to keep moving. They can't keep an audience because their schtick gets awfully boring after a while.
Lezlie
Don't even mention those slimeball Koch brothers you'll get me riled all out of proportion. Most people that do it here are losers in the first place and hide to do it. They almost seem to get some kind of sexual gratification out of it. Most probably suffer from ED or are mad because the last piece of ass they got was when their finger slipped through the toilet paper. If you have something to say about me say it to my face. I got your back always Zuma, just call.
Good thoughts.........o/e
........(¯`v´¯) (¯`v´¯)
☼•*¨`*•.¸.(ˆ◡ˆ).¸.•*
............... *•.¸.•* ♥⋆★•❥ Thanx & Smiles (ツ) & ♥ L☼√Ξ ☼ ♥
⋆───★•❥ ☼ .¸¸.•*`*•.♥ (ˆ◡ˆ) ♥⋯ ❤ ⋯ ★(ˆ◡ˆ) ♥⋯ ❤ ⋯ ★R
Thanks for all this, I never knew what Ad Hominem meant, now I see how ubiquitous it seems...
Algis: For hominous grits, I will do the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, which is a bitch to decipher.
Just Thinking: There are a lot more fallacies that fall under this category. I wrote about these a couple of years ago and it's good to refresh myself, too.