Re: Understanding the Principles of Argumentation #3

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

phillips@arcor.de said:
> > It is my understanding that the ad hominem fallacy takes the form "you 
> > are a patronising little shit, therefore what you say cannot be true". 
> >
> > Rusty's comment seemed to be only that you were a patronising little 
> > shit, and not that this proved you to be incorrect -- hence it doesn't
> > appear to be a particularly fine example of 'ad hominem' at all.

>  You are entirely incorrect.  The issue raised was "given two
> interfaces with the same functionality, choose the simpler of them".
> Instead of addressing that issue, the author was attacked.  Perfect
> example, as I said. 

No, Daniel. Do try to pay attention. 

The ad hominem fallacy take the form "You are a patronising little shit, 
therefore what you say cannot be true.". Rusty's mail contained only the 
first half of that 'logic', and hence was not an example of ad hominem at 
all.

Stating that you are a patronising little shit was a digression and was 
irrelevant to the argument.

Stating that _because_ you are a patronising little shit your claims 
must therefore be wrong, would be an example of the ad hominem fallacy.

But as I said -- Rusty didn't do that; he only did the former.

See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Note the words "Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the
claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)."

--
dwmw2