| >> 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." |
>Socrates died in 399BC., so it certainly can not be Socrates arguing.
So not just wrong, but also a comedian. Dinner and a show!