--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: <snip> > I was pointing out what I thought was a veiled ad hominem by > Judy.
It wasn't "veiled," it was right up front. > This is not necessarily absolutely clear because normal > language is rather loose logically. What I did, whether it > was in error or not, had nothing to do with the context of > the argument she was having with Vaj. Logic is just a set of > rules, it has no content, any content will do; if the rules > work, deductions can be made, if not, falsehoods reveal > themselves. Ad hominem is an informal fallacy; strictly > speaking it is a kind of non sequitur. Xeno, there is "ad hominem," and there is the "ad hominem fallacy." Not all ad hominems are fallacies; it depends on the context in which they appear. Ad hominem reasoning in an argument--argumentum ad hominem--is a fallacy. A negative personal remark not used as reasoning in an argument is not a fallacy, it's just a negative personal remark. What I said to Vaj was the latter, not the former. <snip> > Precisely. Perhaps this was an impish point on my part, having > received such points from Judy from time to time, my > interjection in her argument with Vaj might be construed to be > a veiled ad hominem directed at her. Judy said responding to > Vaj, 'You are not in any position to complain about ad > hominems, poetic or otherwise'. It does not matter what > position he is in, he still may complain, whether it does > good or ill. I consider Judy's comment to be an ad hominem, > and just that, nothing more, nothing about context. You said it was an ad homimen *fallacy* because you thought I was attempting to use it to refute his statement, "Poetic ad hominems are still ad hominems." Of course that is not what I was doing. There's not a thing wrong with Vaj's statement, nor does what I said constitute an attempt at refutation. It was an observation about Vaj's hypocrisy, because he himself makes frequent use of ad hominems. It was a negative personal remark, an ad hominem, but not an argumentum ad hominem. That "he still may complain" is a non sequitur. Of course he may, but it's hypocritical of him to do so, which was my point to start with. You say "Nothing about context," but of course it *was* about context. It's just that you got the context wrong.
