Ad Hominem, Literally translated as "To the person" is an expression for an argument addressing, not the facts at hand but rather the character of the opposing party.
It is a method often employed by the fervently religious against secular progression in virtually any way, as religion generally has the monopoly on a "source of morality" i.e. a deity whom hands down clean cut rules and regulations. While, since the primary purpose is to appeal to basic human emotions, an Ad Hominem argument can appeal greatly to sway minds, upon further inspection it often neglects to give any real answer to the question at hand.
ad hominem은 라틴어로 to the man 또는 to the person을 뜻한다.
보통 논쟁이 겪해지면 인신공격으로 보일만한 대화가 시작된다.
이때 It's an ad hominem attack.이라면서 한번 꺽어줄 필요가 있다.
비슷한 단어로 ad feminam이 있다. 'femi'는 female을 가르키며 '여성'이라는 점을 부각시키며 상대방의 논리를 공격할 때 쓴다.
다음은 ad hominem 예제다.
"That's not an ad hominem attack. You idiot."
ad hominem
사람에 대한, 사람을 향한
(of a criticism, etc.) directed against aperson, rather than against what that person is saying:
an ad hominem attack on his rival
ad hominem
adverb formal
They accused her of arguing ad hominem.
(Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus의 “ad hominem” 정의 © Cambridge University Press)
Examples for 'ad hominem'
The argument ad hominem is always dangerous, is generally fallacious, and is very often biassed.
In the broadest sense, the term covers any rhetoric in which one refers to one's opponent in an ad hominem manner.
The insufficient number of homoeopathic consultants has been relieved in the meantime to some extent by ad hominem appointments.
However, this is not a piece of ad hominem legislation.
As we are legislating, what is wrong with covering that eventuality rather than legislating ad hominem, which is usually considered to be a disreputable legislative practice?
In his words, moral argument is always argumentum ad hominem.
My argument for this claim is an ad hominem one.
His ad hominem tone impales him like a butterfly.
Of course, this is an ad hominem criticism.
I am not worried about individual decisions that he may make, on ex officio or adhominem grounds.
The first is an ad hominem.
One aim of my analysis will be to show that no conspiracy or ad hominem theory is needed to explain the one-sidedness of the report's conclusions.
In no sense at all does the legislation refer ad hominem to any persons named.
I hope that we can start to talk about the issues and not ad hominem politics.
I believe people of learning, describe that as an argumentum ad hominem.