Comment by mmanfrin
3 years ago
> ah, the ad hominem, never a good sign for the proceeding argument.
An ad hominem means using an insult as the basis for rejecting an argument, e.g. 'that is wrong because you are [attack]'. Saying an argument is naive and then explaining why is not an ad hominem.
arguments can have multiple lines of reasoning, one of which can be an ad hominem all by itself.
None of the lines of reasoning were an ad hominem. From your other comment[1], it seems like you think "ad hominem" just means "being rude to someone". I recommend reading the GP comment's description of ad hominem again: it means making a logical argument that depends on the speaker's personal characteristics.
"You're European, so your argument is biased and wrong" is an ad hominem. "Your argument is naive, here's why I think that" is not. The latter is logically downstream of the argument, while the former is upstream.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31854644
no, an ad hominem need not be literal. do you really not understand nuance in language? we're not computers operating only on singular data and deterministic instructions.
see how those three sentences go together? that's a line of reasoning. the subject comment doesn't have that throughline. it's disjointed; the parts are only tangentially connected.
2 replies →
A car has multiple parts, but it’s still difficult to use if you only use/look at each one separately
if you look carefully, the 3 sentences are disconnected. they don’t form a line of reasoning.
if it had been starter, engine, and transmission, maybe you’d have a point, but instead it’s corroded battery, door handle, and tailpipe.
2 replies →
None of it was ad hominem.