{"id":683,"date":"2007-10-17T16:00:43","date_gmt":"2007-10-17T20:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.drslewis.org\/camille\/2007\/10\/17\/the-adhominem-defense\/"},"modified":"2007-10-17T16:00:43","modified_gmt":"2007-10-17T20:00:43","slug":"the-adhominem-defense","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drslewis.org\/camille\/2007\/10\/17\/the-adhominem-defense\/","title":{"rendered":"The Adhominem Defense"},"content":{"rendered":"

There’s, of course, a potential theory being built in\u00a0all this although I can’t imagine its final shape. One of my favorite criticism anthologies from my grad years was Nothstine, Blair, and Copeland<\/a> that dared to show the behind-the-scenes machinations of a successful published article.<\/p>\n

Ideas surrounding liminal rhetoric — those who speak on the borders of a culture — have always intrigued me. Pied Pipers, prophets, cultural surgeons, casuistic stretchers, comedians\u00a0— so many pictures for that person. And, of course, my suitor metaphor. <shrug><\/p>\n

But\u00a0most\u00a0critics have little experience with the insider\/outsider rhetorics.\u00a0And I do\u00a0know them firsthand. So I’m going to take little notes that, if past experience proves accurate, will develop into a larger, more public offering. Maybe you have some suggestions you see in all this too. \ud83d\ude42 This inbetween my silly youtube stuff and crafting pics.<\/p>\n

One trope that keeps popping up is what my brother\u00a0chuckled about last night and named “the adhominem defense.” The adhominem<\/a> fallacy, of course, is when you attack the person instead of the ideas:<\/p>\n

Don’t believe him when he talks about his illegal immigration policy. He’s divorced<\/em>!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The problem is that the retort is a distraction from the issues at hand. Wiki points out that it’s the converse of an appeal to authority, both as fallacious as the other. The attacker is trying to reform the discussion into the indefensible, private matters and take the upperhand in the process. It’s an argumentative sucker punch<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The adhominem defense<\/em> doesn’t fit any boxing metaphor (king hit<\/a>, rabbit punch<\/a>, and feint <\/a>don’t fit) because the initiator of the conversation didn’t know they were fighting at all. It’s a sort of tuo quoque<\/em>, but more specific and passive-aggressive.\u00a0Here are some examples:<\/p>\n