Ad hominem: Difference between revisions
(added a note about "ad hominem approval" and explanation of ) |
m (formatting and noting ad hominem can be a defense, not necessary an attack always) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'"ad hominem"' is a Latin phrase used very commonly in English (just like "ad nauseum", and also "i.e." and "e.g." are abbreviations of Latin phrases). It is, effectively, part of English. | |||
What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to '''who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents''', in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation. | What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to '''who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents''', in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation. | ||
'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits. | '''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack or defense on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits. | ||
[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]]. | [[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]]. | ||
Some trolls refuse to understand [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]]. | Some [[trolls]]] refuse to understand [[ad hominem approval]] wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following [[Special:Recentchanges]]. | ||
Revision as of 17:02, 8 March 2004
'"ad hominem"' is a Latin phrase used very commonly in English (just like "ad nauseum", and also "i.e." and "e.g." are abbreviations of Latin phrases). It is, effectively, part of English.
What it means is, in the context of an argument, referring to who made the argument, as opposed to the argument's own referents, in deciding whether to accept or reject it. It is normally considered proof that one has no real argument to offer against what is said, if one must invoke "who wrote it" as an refutation.
Ad hominem is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack or defense on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.
Ad hominem revert is an obvious example, one common on large public wikis and giving rise to calls for a revert currency to make such actions "not free". Ad hominem delete is an example of this weak form raised to sysop vandalism, a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by Wikimedia.
Some trolls] refuse to understand ad hominem approval wherein the edits of some known author do not fire up a desire to track their trail by following Special:Recentchanges.