Good or fair uses
of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not.
Not exact matches
In his article ««Instinctive Repugnance,»» David Novak seizes upon and distorts a single phrase, taken out
of context, from Professor Jon D. Levenson's extensive and thoughtful
critique of the interfaith document «Dabru Emet (Speak the Truth): A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity,» in order to launch an
ad hominem assault on Prof. Levenson's integrity, his attitude to Christianity, and his suitability to be a professor at Harvard's Divinity School.
A mild form
of ad hominem attack, if you will; you center your
critique on personal attributes without addressing matters
of fact.
Sorry, hunter, but the other (less well known) half
of the «
ad hominem» fallacy is to pretend that a
critique just can't apply because
of * who * someone is.
The bulk
of the
critique veered off into a number
of tangents and
ad hominems having little to do with the documentary itself, such as discussing an article written several years earlier by Prof. Meier, attacking Lundy Bancroft, another expert on domestic violence who was shown in the film, and speculating about the author
of briefly mentioned other research.]