How we think: the fallacy of ad hominem

In the past, you probably heard the phrase ‘ad hominem’. What does it mean? Some of the posts here show that some of us have mastered this fallacy to a fault. I want to talk about this fallacy because it is really distracting serious attempts to present useful information and insights.

The phrase is in Latin. Its literal translation into English is "against the man" or "against the person" or “against the character of the person”. It is an argumentation strategy introduced to distract attention, to divert attention from the real issue under consideration. It adds no value to the issue being discussed. It is a waste of time. It shows that the person employing this strategy is not serious about the issue under consideration or that he lacks the skills necessary to advance his own side of the argument on the issue, so he elects to confuse other people rather than present his rational analysis of the issue. In short, it is a strategy used by agboros and traders whose level of education is not beyond grade three. This is how I see it.

I will now give examples to illustrate how ridiculous the strategy is.

Example 1
Topic: abortion

Emma: Abortion should be legalized as a state policy.
David:  Emma is fathered by a goat. Therefore, his claim on abortion is false.

Example 2
Topic: education

Emma: Education should be free for all from K to PhD.
David:  Emma is a wife-beater. Therefore, his claim on education is false.

Example 3
Topic: freedom

Version A:
Emma: A country called Biafra should be an independent nation, free from Nigeria
David: Emma is not in my group. Therefore, his claim on Biafra is false.

Version B:
Samuel:  Biafra is a state located in South Africa.
Emma: Biafra is a state located in West Africa.
David: Samuel is a “learned” member of my group and profession; plus, he has a PhD in Moon Science; therefore, his claim on Biafra is true. Emma is not in my group; he is a common trader; therefore, his claim about Biafra is patently false and misleading.

Notice a couple of things:
First, a valid claim is rejected or accepted on the basis of facts or assumptions unrelated to the issue under consideration.

Second, attributes or qualifications or group memberships of the person making the claim are used as a measure to disqualify a valid claim or to validate a false claim.

Third, the person employing this useless strategy wants the members of the audience to consider his irrelevant attack as acceptable evidence against or in support of the claim/argument under consideration.

In Sum:
At the end, the members of the audience learned nothing from the person using this useless strategy.
Avoid using this useless strategy if you truly desire Biafra or/and if you want other people to take you serious.