Should I criticize PEOPLE or their IDEAS

Should I criticize PEOPLE or the IDEAS people have?

Another common fallacy to beware of is called ad hominem, meaning "against the person." This is a reasoning mistake you have probably seen many times. For example, Gina might say, “Mrs. Hertz-
feldt is a terrible teacher. I mean, just look at her! She's wearing orange pants with a green sweater." Is clothing relevant to how well a person can teach? Probably not. I can imagine a great teacher in orange pants and a green sweater! Gina is attacking Mrs. Hertzfeldt personally instead of judging her teaching ability Here are three more closely related fallacies:

Tu quoque, meaning you also, is when you try to disprove someone by claiming they do the very thing they are criticizing.Suppose Shadi is arguing that a local factory should be shut down because it is polluting the environment. Keri dismisses him, saying, "You pollute the environment too, Shadi-every time you throw away a Styrofoam cup."

Guilt by association is when you try to disprove your opponent by claiming they are connected to a bad group of people. For example, Keri might continue to attack Shadi by pointing out that the members of one environmentalist group have been spraying graffiti all around town.

Circumstantial ad hominem is when you try to disprove your opponent by claiming their argument stems from personal interest. For example, Keri might say,"The real reason Shadi wants the factory shut down is because he wants the land to be turned into a park where he and his friends can play basketball."

JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU was an eighteenth-century French philosopher who wrote a popular book called Émile, about how to raise children. In his day, children were strictly controlled and forced to learn all sorts of useless things.Rousseau presented an alternative-supporting freedom for students to learn from their own experiences. He argued that children are born good and wise in their own way. Rousseau had five children of his own, but didn't want to raise a family, so he sent them to an orphanage. Some people think that this shows his theories about children are worthless. Do you agree, or are they committing the ad hominem fallacy?

MARTIN EEIDEGGER was a twentieth-century German philosopher who wrote an important book called Being and Time about the meaning of existence. In this book, Heidegger argues that the highest moral authority comes from the free choices of true individuals. In 1933, Heidegger joined the Nazi party, which committed terrible crimes against millions of people. Even after he learned about those crimes, Heidegger never seemed to feel regret about them. Furthermore, he supported Nazi ideas in his journals. Some people insist that this shows his theories about morality are wrong. Do you agree, or are they committing the ad hominem fallacy?

THINK ON IT!

Do you think the following arguments commit the ad hominem fallacy? Why or why not?

1. Nya is deciding whether or not to join the soccer team. Joel argues that she shouldn't join because most of the girls on the team are mean.

2. Henry wants to sign up for an after-school art club, but sees all the names on the list are girls' names. A voice inside his head argues that he shouldn't sign up for an all-girl club.

3. Give your own example of an ad hominem fallacy.