Ad Hominem

An argument is an Ad Hominem argument when someone attacks the person instead of his argument. That is an oversimplified explanation but sums up the basis of this argument. Instead of attacking the contentions or points of someone's argument, the person is attacked. This is a tactic to distract attention away from the propositions or points of the argument.

I have often wondered if people resort to this because they cannot handle the terms of the argument so they go for the throat of the one making the argument instead. This can be a good form or a bad form of argumentation depending on how it is used.

I am going to use a personal example of something I should have not done, I knew better, but fell for this fallacy anyway.

When I began writing about the Minuteman Project, I made some rather quick assumptions about them without knowing a great deal about any of them.

I did do some quick research on one of the co-founders of the movement, Chris Simcox. What I found out about the man was disturbing. The information I uncovered was more than three years old. It was from secondary sources. I did not verify these sources. I had a writing deadline so I went with three-year-old secondary sources.

I committed the classic error of Ad Hominem reasoning. What I did was let Simcox's apparent three-year old biases distract me from what he was saying regarding his views on the Illegal Mexican migrant worker problem. Allow me to be clearer.

Simcox may have had some good arguments for the Mexican Immigration problem but I allowed my perception of his arguments to be affected by his apparent biases. I allowed myself to NOT LISTEN to what may have been a good and decent argument.

A person with dubious motives, and I was judging Simcox to have dubious motives, could be right in the argument he presents. He could also be wrong but you cannot figure that out if you attack the man's character to the exclusion of listening to his arguments.

Let's say that a known pathological liar comes running into your house screaming that someone just kidnapped his daughter. You know that this man is a practiced liar. Do you let his bias stop you from jumping up and looking into the matter? You could do that but that he is a known liar and pathologically so does not mean that he isn't telling the truth in that circumstance.

It is not wrong to point out people's biases. In the Minuteman's Chris Simcox case, from the available evidence, it appeared strongly, and still does, that he has a bias concerning Mexicans in general and not just illegal Migrant workers.

(However, for the record I did not bother to check this out and let it cloud my judgment.)

However, for the sake of argument let's say that his bias is indeed that he doesn't want illegal or legal Mexicans in the United States. That is a bias worth mentioning because it could, but not necessarily, affect what he says about Immigration. His bias would be applicable but not necessarily make the propositions of his argument about Immigration wrong.

In every conceivable disputed issue there is going to be biases on both sides of the argument. Wrongly used, the Ad Hominem argument prevents you from listening to the propositions of the argument. Rightly used, it simply points out the one making the argument might have a stake in the issue and that his judgment "might" be skewed in the presentation of facts and stats to support his position.

Ad Hominem is misused if it prevents the hearer from properly evaluating the evidence presented by someone because of what we might think of them.

I failed in the use of Ad Hominem argument regarding Chris Simcox, co-leader of the Minuteman Project. It is something I intend to correct by attempting an interview with this man.

Recognize someone's bias then get on with evaluating the speaker's evidence. Be cautious that bias could affect the speaker's judgment then move on to listen to the propositions of the arguments.

Doug Bower is a freelance writer, Syndicated Columnist, and book author. His most recent writing credits include The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Houston Chronicle, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Transitions Abroad. He is a columnist with Cricketsoda.com and more than 21 additional online magazines. He is also a writer with EzineArticles.com with a readership of almost 6,000. He lives with his wife in Guanajuato, Mexico. His newest books, Mexican Living: Blogging it from a Third World Country and The Plain Truth about Living in Mexico can be seen: CLICK HERE -- http://www.lulu.com/mexicanliving