Americans Should Talk About Gun Control This Thanksgiving

[djAdvocate]

Nov 27, 2015 16:34:34 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Nov 26, 2015 22:28:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

to make myself clear:

ad hominem is used to make the argument about your opponent in the debate, in an attempt to undermine credibility.

since Trump is not my opponent in this or any other debate, calling him an idiot is not an ad hominem argumentative. 

neither is calling Brietbart without any journalistic merit. 

but it is reminiscent of ad hominem, for sure.

but hey- i might be wrong.  like i say, it is just my understanding of the term.

edit: here is my understanding:

www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

I read your link. Really! Some people actually do read links.

Several years ago I did quite a bit of Google hit reading on the subject. Many of the hits are very similar in form and length as the link you provided. There were a few longer presentations found, but none of them had anything but the standard "because you are X, your argument is invalid" in the first and second person, but not the third person, and never having examples directed towards organizations.

But I finally found a site that answered posed questions about philosophic matters called Philosophy Stack Exchange and submitted my question to them. You can view the question and the discussion by going to this site:

philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3681/does-the-ad-hominem-fallacy-only-apply-when-used-against-individuals-or-is-it-a

There was some acceptance of including organizations under the ad hominem umbrella, but one agreed with your stance of accepting it as a fallacy, but of a different name. Overall, it appears supportive of my position, but doesn't reach being definitive IMO.

inconclusive, can be argued either way, and generally supportive of your position?

wow.  we actually agree on this.  whoda thunk?