Ad Hominem

I understand that some modern "philosophers" think that all statements tell you more about the person making a statement than they tell you about the world. Some "philosophers" think that all arguments are based upon "will to power" and power politics. Thus, according to these so called "philosophers," all critical arguments are Ad Hominem statements.
Ad Hominem means a fallacious attack against the person who defends on argument instead of against the premises the person gave supporting the conclusion. For example the conclusion is bad because it is support by radicals. Or what Socrates said is wrong because he has friends who have been disloyal to Athens. One argument of this type is called "poisoning the well". The British novelist Charles Kingsley attacked Cardinal Newman saying his claims could not be trusted because Newman first loyalty was to the Catholic Church and not to the truth. Newman reply was that Kingsley made it impossible for any catholic to advance an argument because anyone could reply to any statement Catholics would make that they as Catholics were not concerned with the truth. Kingsley had poisoned the well of discourse. All deconstructions and soft-minded followers of Nietzsche commit the fallacy of "poisoning the well."

    Consider the following argument: Elizabeth Joseph in May 1997 before the Utah chapter of NOW. Argued that “polygamy is beneficial to women in the 21 century”:

I’ve often said that if polygamy didn’t exist the modern American woman would have invented it. Because despite its reputation polygamy is the one lifestyle that offers in independent woman a real chance to have it all.

As a journalist I work many unpredictable hours in a fast-paced environment. The news determines my schedule. Because of my plural marriage arrangement, I don’t have to worry about coming home late. I know that when I have to work late my daughter will be surrounded by loving adults with whom she is comfortable and who know her schedule without my telling them. My eight-year old has never seen the inside of a day care center and my husband has never eaten a TV dinner. I can be alone and guilt free. It is a rare day when all eight of my husbands wives are tired at the same time. It is helpful to think of polygamy in terms of a free market approach to marriage. Why should you not have the opportunity to marry the best man available regardless of his marriage status? Polygamy provides the opportunity for women to maximize their female potential…(Feb 1998 issue of Harper’s Magazine)

    Let us paraphrase Elizabeth Joseph’s argument as follows:

All persons who desire to be independent and to have it all (work, family and personal time) are persons who desire to live in plural marriages.

X is a person who desires to be independent and to have it all.

     3.) Therefore x is a person who desires to live in a plural marriage.

X = I and other women desire to be independent and to have it all. A student in one of my classes asked "what religion has influenced Elizabeth?" She is from Utah did you not say? Thus because she is a member of the Morman religious tradition, she would probably agree with plural marriages. It is important to see that this response to the argument is an Ad Hominem argument. The response attacks the circumstances of the person instead of the person’s argument: the person should not be believed because of some trait of their character or their circumstances.