What are the differences between the use of the ad hominem fallacy versus the analysis of writings and speeches?
Here at E Cafe, we have a much broader definition of ad hominems in our rules, which include a ban on personal insults too. Furthermore, our rules here at E Cafe prohibit the use of any ad homimens and personal insults anywhere on this board, whether in the public or private forums.
While the Intra-TOC Polemical forum exists so that issues which would disturb the general public can be viewed by genuine inquirers, catechumen, and members of the True Orthodox Church, our Political and Social Private Forum exists so that Orthodox Christians who wish to be more prayerful and who know that we are in the last days can better prepare for Eternal Life by unceasing prayer, repentance, and avoidance of politics and current events. Even though these two forums are hidden from the general public does not mean that ad hominems will be tolerated there. In fact, those two forums often incur many more warnings due to the increased use of ad hominems, along with baiting and flaming.
Examples of ad hominems would be A = B
The person is attacked.
1. He is crazy and a conspiracy theorist. Look, he even wears a tin-foil hat.
- How could he have earned his many degrees? He is a stupid person.
- He is very arrogant.
Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.
There are cases where consciously or unconsciously people start to question the opponent or his personal association rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults but they are somehow different in nature and the distinction is very subtle.
Arguers who are not familiar with the principles of making logical arguments commonly end up saying something that would draw the audience’s attention to the distasteful characteristics of the individual. Such people use this fallacy as a tool to deceive their audience. Making such a blatant personal comment against somebody makes it hard for people to believe it isn’t true. Typically, even the arguer himself believes that such personal traits or circumstances are not enough to dispose of an individual’s opinion or argument. However, if looked at rationally, such arguments even if true never provide a valid reason to disregard someone’s criticism.
http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
Ad hominems can be the use of a meme to attack a person. It can also be the use of rumors or gossip.
On the contrary, the analysis or criticism of someone's writings or speeches involves looking at the development of a thesis statement (main theme), the points made to prove the thesis, the use and/or abuse of rhetorical devices such as metaphors and similes, the use and/or appropriateness of logical fallacies, the literary styles employed, the overall presentation and its effect on the readers, and whether a proper conclusion is made.
Below are three examples of constructive criticism:
1. MIchael Whelton's almost exclusive use of encyclopedias as references in his book, Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition and the many misspellings in the text give the impression that this 215 page book was poorly researched and hastily conceived and written.
Throughout his essay and in his conclusion, there is no overall thesis statement, thus his essay tends to ramble.
His encyclicals employ the use of strawmen to attack anyone who would dare oppose him, thus he effectively silences his opposition.
On the other hand, someone could say that he is presenting a constructive criticism of a book or essay, but upon a closer examination, it becomes apparent that he is using an ad hominum, which indirectly attacks the writer. Nevertheless, these types of uncharitable posts are not encouraged as they are crossing the line into baiting and badgering. They are also considered to be "flaming." Below are two examples of flaming.
1. His writings seem filled with pointless paranoid conspiracy theories. [Here, the writer is being indirectly accused of being paranoid.]
- His flowery elegance and verbosity show his arrogance. [Here, the writer is being judged as arrogant].
In conclusion, analysis of encyclicals, essays, books, and speeches are encouraged to arrive at the truth, but use of ad hominems to attack a member or public figure are forbidden. In Christian charity, we should not even be attacking public figures such as the Patriarch of Constantinople or the President of the USA, yet we can and should critique their writings, speeches, and actions, such as kissing the Quran, bowing before an Imam, or engaging in acts of heresy, schism, or war.
This thread is open for discussion, and I would value your input as I am not infallible, and my examples may be poor. If you can offer better examples, kindly do so.
Thanks.