[eurleif]

You're equivocating between intent and purpose. It doesn't matter here why someone makes a personal attack; it matters what role the personal attack plays in their statement. That doesn't require reading their mind, merely reading their statement.

[Maursault]

You're ridiculous.

Please describe the purpose of my statement. Am I trying to undermine your argument? Or am I just trying to characterize you for the purposes of characterizing you and it is unrelated to any argument you may have? How could you, or anyone who is not a mind-reader, possibly tell one way or the other? You can't, and no one can, not here, not anywhere, not ever. This is called a counter example, and it neatly destroys both your's and the OP's flawed arguments.

Ad hominem quite literally means, "to the man." It does not mean, "to the man only for the purposes of x, y, z." An ad hominem fallacy is any statement whatsoever about the man. If you said, "circles are round," and I said in reply, "you are blue," this is an ad hominem fallacy regardless of purpose because it specifically regards you.

idk where the author got their definition of ad hominem, but they're misinterpreting the meaning in the same exact way I would be misinterpreting the meaning of tires if I argued that "tires are tread for wheels for vehicles for the purposes of sticking to the road," so any object that has no purpose for sticking to the road can't be a tire... like what's tied to that rope hanging from a tree branch that people swing on. Can't be a tire because there is no road sticking here. This is the same mistake.

Ad hominem is merely arguing "to the man," and the extra stuff, "for the purposes of undermining their argument" is not strictly part of its definition, but merely explains, when one's informal and formal logic is not strong, why the fallacy is employed: if I can't attack your argument, I can attack you... just not validly or soundly.

And fwiw, I was not equivocating because I did not introduce ambiguity with a word having one meaning in part of the argument and the same word having a different meaning in another part of the argument. When one acts with purpose, then one acts with intent. It could not be otherwise, because the definition of purpose is to have as one's objective or intent. I employed logical equivalence, not equivocation. It's not as though I used "purpose" to mean a marine mammal misspelled later in my argument, but if I did, that would be equivocation.

[eurleif]

>Please describe the purpose of my statement. Am I trying [...]

It doesn't matter what you were trying to do. For all I know, you were trying to say an ancient incantation that will make my head explode. It matters what you did, which was to call me ridiculous without any implication that my ridiculousness undermines my argument.

>Ad hominem quite literally means, "to the man." It does not mean, "to the man only for the purposes of x, y, z." An ad hominem fallacy is any statement whatsoever about the man.

By this logic, "Socrates is a man; all men are mortal; therefore Socrates is mortal" is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, because it is a statement about Socrates the man. Perhaps you are willing to reconsider your assumption that the literal definition of the phrase "ad hominem" is the only thing one needs to consider in determining what it means?

>And fwiw, I was not equivocating because I did not introduce ambiguity with a word having one meaning in part of the argument and the same word having a different meaning in another part of the argument.

You introduced ambiguity between the purpose of a statement itself -- its role in an argument -- and purpose of a person in making that statement, also known as intent.

Consider the statement: "The purpose of plant leaves is to photosynthesize food for the plant." Perfectly ordinary thing to say, and it doesn't imply that there is some person (or deity) who designed the plant with intent. It merely describes the role that leaves play for a plant.

We can use the word "function" instead if you prefer. Arguing about whether the author is allowed to use the word "purpose" in the way that he did is not productive, and does not address his actual meaning.

[Maursault]

> It doesn't matter what you were trying to do.

Thank you, that is exactly right, and my entire point. The ad hominem is in referring to the person making the argument rather than speaking to the argument. It doesn't matter why (even if the only possibly reason is to invalidly undermine argument), it is still ad hominem.

> By this logic

No it isn't, because Socrates is not the man, here. The man, in this context, is whomever is making the argument. The mistake there instead is a category error.

> You introduced ambiguity between the purpose of a statement itself -- its role in an argument -- and purpose of a person in making that statement, also known as intent.

Hello. First of all, no I did not, but more importantly, this could not be equivalence because purpose and purpose are the same words with the same meaning. You are trying to split hairs that will not split, and you are also begging the question (petitio principii) in attempting to so narrowly define an ad hominem (it is what it is what it is is called circular reasoning).

An ad hominem is any reference to the man, usually in the form of a personal attack, but not necessarily so. One can even start an argument with an ad hominem, so there is no preexisting argument to undermine.

[eurleif]

>The ad hominem is in referring to the person making the argument rather than speaking to the argument.

You've almost got it. The key thing you're missing is: "in a context where you are implied to be speaking to the argument". It's fallacious because it attempts to treat something that is not an argument as being one, not because the category "statements that aren't arguments" is automatically fallacious in all contexts.

If I said, "your argument is wrong because it's raining", that would be fallacious (unless your argument actually relied on the weather in some way). On the other hand, if I interjected, "it's raining!", that would just be an off-topic comment, not a fallacy. Same idea.

>No it isn't, because Socrates is not the man, here. The man, in this context, is whomever is making the argument.

That certainly can be Socrates. For example:

Socrates: I am immortal!

Interlocutor: Actually, Socrates, all men are mortal, and you are a man. Therefore, you are mortal.

Is the interlocutor committing a fallacy? Or how about here:

Socrates: Apples grow from trees. This oak tree is a tree. Therefore apples grow from this oak tree. That was a valid syllogism.

Interlocutor: Actually, Socrates, that was an example of affirming the consequent. A valid syllogism looks like this: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

>First of all, no I did not, but more importantly, this could not be equivalence because purpose and purpose are the same words with the same meaning.

Again, you're unnecessarily preoccupied with the definition of the word "purpose". I've already given you an example (that you failed to address) where it clearly means something different from "the intent of a person" -- the plant leaves -- but if you insist that it can't be used that way, fine; the author used a word incorrectly; whatever. Just substitute the word "function" and move on to addressing the substance of the matter instead of the definition of a word.

[Maursault]

>> The ad hominem is in referring to the person making the argument rather than speaking to the argument.

> You've almost got it. The key thing you're missing is: "in a context where you are implied to be speaking to the argument". It's fallacious because it attempts to treat something that is not an argument as being one, not because the category "statements that aren't arguments" is automatically fallacious in all contexts.

You are mistaken, adding requirements to the definition of ad hominem that do not exist.

ad ho·mi·nem /ˌad ˈhämənəm/ adjective (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

That is all an ad hominem is. It does not require purpose or intent, which is always presumed to be intended to undermine an argument. The ad hominem is simply and merely any reference whatsoever to the person rather than their argument.

You are simply mistaken, and that is all.

> If I said, "your argument is wrong because it's raining", that would be fallacious (unless your argument actually relied on the weather in some way).

No, not necessarily, and you do not give enough context to determine the validity of "your argument is wrong because it is raining."

> On the other hand, if I interjected, "it's raining!", that would just be an off-topic comment, not a fallacy. Same idea.

You are employing a series of straw man fallacies.

>> No it isn't, because Socrates is not the man, here. The man, in this context, is whomever is making the argument.

> That certainly can be Socrates.

Socrates died in 399BC., so it certainly can not be Socrates arguing. It is you arguing, and you have made a category error. Just because you are both a man does not imply you are the same man. This is a well known fallacious argument, and long identified as a category error.

>> First of all, no I did not, but more importantly, this could not be equivalence because purpose and purpose are the same words with the same meaning.

> Again, you're unnecessarily preoccupied with the definition of the word "purpose". I've already given you an example (that you failed to address) where it clearly means something different from "the intent of a person" -- the plant leaves -- but if you insist that it can't be used that way, fine; the author used a word incorrectly; whatever. Just substitute the word "function" and move on to addressing the substance of the matter instead of the definition of a word.

You are unnecessarily and incorrectly and invalidly applying criteria that are not appropriate here. Thus, your objections are trivial. There is no ambiguity in my use of the word "purpose" or "intent."

[eurleif]

>You are employing a series of straw man fallacies.

>Socrates died in 399BC., so it certainly can not be Socrates arguing.

So not just wrong, but also a comedian. Dinner and a show!