In reading the comments to this post I was moved to comment on the ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem is not synonymous with an insult. Any argument that takes on the individual making the argument rather than the argument the individual is making is an ad hominem. That’s just what it means.
Consequently, this statement:
I think Megan is often right, but also often tends to bend things a bit, in an ideological direction.
(It would be a misuse of the term to say that sentence just above is a “ad hominem†though, to the extent that it might be true.)
is poppycock. The truth of an attack against the individual making the argument has no bearing on whether it’s an ad hominem or not. If it’s an attack on the individual rather than the argument, it’s an ad hominem. This is what comes of people using Latin rather than English. In Latin ad hominem means “to the person”. as opposed, presumably, to ad argumentum, “to the argument”.
If an ad hominem attack is not true, it is a slander. If it is irrelevant, it is a fallacy.
The problem seems to me that odograph was not making an argument; he’s just simply talking about McArdle’s character. I’m not sure that it’s ad hom fallacy, because odograph hadn’t really committed to a proposition.
Similarly, McArdle seems to be arguing that Elizabeth Warren is of unsuitable character to hold a certain office. Levenson argues that this is an ad hominem argument, which I don’t think it is because McArdle’s premise is personal. Does that make sense?
Dave: I believe you have hit upon the ad hominem fallacy fallacy.
“Jane, you ignorant slut.”
Yes, that’s correct. In a way, it’s the opposite of the appeal to authority fallacy.
“If an ad hominem attack is not true, it is a slander. If it is irrelevant, it is a fallacy.”
No, if you hold to the Latin meaning, an ad hominem can be pure praise and so, whether true or false, would not amount to slander. Slander is always derogatory, by definition.