Is it a "personal attack" to claim GG's reporting has been sloppy and/or hyperbolic?

[MADem]

69. Your little blue link is blatantly disingenuous.

It goes to "ad hominem" which redirects from personal attack because ad hominem means much, much more than that. It refers to ARGUMENTS, which are NOT exclusively attacks.

Thanks for proving my point.



Here's an "ad hominem" fallacious example, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with an "attack."

Ed Snowden is INNOCENT! He's innocent because he has the fairest skin, the nicest eyes, and he wears polyester shirts that never wrinkle. That massive mole on the side of his neck is just dreamy, and what's not to love about that haircut of his? He wears glasses, so everyone knows he's smart. All the cool kids think he's cute, so he must have a good personality, and everyone wants to hang out with him! How anyone could think he's guilty of anything is beyond me!

Not one "attack" in that entire description--but that is an ad hominem argument.

Here is another one:

Ed Snowden is a man, so of course he's smarter than most women. He's less emotional, too and that's why he's able to handle living in Russia. I know this because I'm an astronaut, and you'll just have to take my word for it. Because he's so manly, he'll have an easy time learning Russian, and because he's tall, he'll make friends quickly.


None of that is based on any verifiable fact, it's ad hominem tripe.
It says nothing about his behaviors, his actions, his expressed opinions, his judgment--and those things are NOT ad hominem and/or personal attacks--they are demonstrated factors to be considered when coming to a conclusion about how a person conducts themself. Character is a consideration, like it or not. A reasonable person weighs things of that nature, unless they are dull of comprehension.

From your very link:

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[14]

"Reasoning"--the act of using the good sense you were born with--is not "attacking."

So, sorry--you've missed the mark, and your very own link backs up what I'm saying. You just can't sell it, because your interpretation is wrong.