My Operaad Hominem, Character Attack, Emotive Significance
Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:04:02 PM
The distinctions among a fallacy, name-calling, and emotional slanting are illustrated by this example letter to the editor of Time magazine concerning societal icons:
Briefly, the argument can be reconstructed as follows. The conclusion that Paris Hilton is not the iconic blonde of this decade is based on the premise that Paris Hilton does not have inner beauty. (Note that the argument is weak because the premise that "All iconic blondes of the decade have inner beauty" is also being presupposed without argument, a premise which, in turn, presupposes both that iconic blonds exist and that iconic blondes exist for about one decade.
Although the subject of the argument is based on character, the ad hominen fallacy in this case is based on dropping the issue of the kind of character which is relevant to the argument: that kind of character necessary for being an blonde icon, The extraneous statement that "Hilton couldn't hold the handbags of those women" is a simple character attack irrelevant to the conclusion put forward and is an ad hominem fallacy.
The phrases "couldn't hold the handbags," "Hilton" (without the first name), and "lifeless doll" are uses of negative emotive significance which reflect the writer's attitude toward Paris Hilton. Only when their literal significance is reconstructed (as in the brief argument stated following Tiffany Service's quotation above) would there be clear evidence of a presented argument.
(Tiffany Service, "Iconic Wannabe," in "Letters," Time 168 No. 8 (17 August 2006), 12.)Time's Verbatim Column quoted rich socialite Paris Hilton, who said, "Every decade has an iconic blond like Marilyn Monroe or Princess Diana, and right now I'm that icon. Was she kidding? Hilton couldn't hold the handbags of those women. They were just as beautiful on the inside as on the outside. Hilton is no more than a lifeless doll.
Briefly, the argument can be reconstructed as follows. The conclusion that Paris Hilton is not the iconic blonde of this decade is based on the premise that Paris Hilton does not have inner beauty. (Note that the argument is weak because the premise that "All iconic blondes of the decade have inner beauty" is also being presupposed without argument, a premise which, in turn, presupposes both that iconic blonds exist and that iconic blondes exist for about one decade.
Although the subject of the argument is based on character, the ad hominen fallacy in this case is based on dropping the issue of the kind of character which is relevant to the argument: that kind of character necessary for being an blonde icon, The extraneous statement that "Hilton couldn't hold the handbags of those women" is a simple character attack irrelevant to the conclusion put forward and is an ad hominem fallacy.
The phrases "couldn't hold the handbags," "Hilton" (without the first name), and "lifeless doll" are uses of negative emotive significance which reflect the writer's attitude toward Paris Hilton. Only when their literal significance is reconstructed (as in the brief argument stated following Tiffany Service's quotation above) would there be clear evidence of a presented argument.
You must be 
