Agreed, although I don’t know that I have any Asperger’s. Here’s a sample dialogue I actually had that would have gone better if I had been in touch with my inner moralizer.
One of the great benefits that being in touch with the inner moralizer can have is that can warn you about how what you say will be interpreted by another. It would probably recommend against speaking your first paragraph, for example.
I suspect the inner moralizer would also probably not treat the “You’re selfish” as an ad hominem argument. It technically does apply but from within a moral model what is going on isn’t of the form of the ad hominem fallacy. It is more of the form:
Not expressing and expecting others to express a certain moral position is bad.
You are bad.
You should fear the social consequences of being considered bad.
You should change your moral position.
I’m not saying the above is desirable reasoning—it’s annoying and has its own logical probelms. But it is also a different underlying mistake than the typical ad hominem.
One of the great benefits that being in touch with the inner moralizer can have is that can warn you about how what you say will be interpreted by another. It would probably recommend against speaking your first paragraph, for example.
If it works that way, I don’t want it. My relationship with X has no value to me if the relevant truths cannot be told, and so far as I can tell that first paragraph was both true and relevant at the time.
Now if that had been a coworker with whom I needed ongoing practical cooperation, I would have made some minimal polite response just like I make minimal polite responses to statements about who is winning American Idol.
...But it is also a different underlying mistake than the typical ad hominem.
Okay, there might be some detailed definition of ad hominem that doesn’t exactly match the mistake you described. I presently fail to see how the difference is important. The purpose of both ad hominem and your offered interpretation is to use emotional manipulation to get the target (me in this example) to shut up. Would I benefit in some way from making a distinction between the fallacy you are describing and ad hominem?
One of the great benefits that being in touch with the inner moralizer can have is that can warn you about how what you say will be interpreted by another. It would probably recommend against speaking your first paragraph, for example.
I suspect the inner moralizer would also probably not treat the “You’re selfish” as an ad hominem argument. It technically does apply but from within a moral model what is going on isn’t of the form of the ad hominem fallacy. It is more of the form:
Not expressing and expecting others to express a certain moral position is bad.
You are bad.
You should fear the social consequences of being considered bad.
You should change your moral position.
I’m not saying the above is desirable reasoning—it’s annoying and has its own logical probelms. But it is also a different underlying mistake than the typical ad hominem.
If it works that way, I don’t want it. My relationship with X has no value to me if the relevant truths cannot be told, and so far as I can tell that first paragraph was both true and relevant at the time.
Now if that had been a coworker with whom I needed ongoing practical cooperation, I would have made some minimal polite response just like I make minimal polite responses to statements about who is winning American Idol.
Okay, there might be some detailed definition of ad hominem that doesn’t exactly match the mistake you described. I presently fail to see how the difference is important. The purpose of both ad hominem and your offered interpretation is to use emotional manipulation to get the target (me in this example) to shut up. Would I benefit in some way from making a distinction between the fallacy you are describing and ad hominem?