People overuse the word ad hominem. The post above is not an example of one.

Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument. Not every criticism of a source is an ad hominem.

Edit: to clarify, i think there is a huge difference between saying something like: national post is known to lean right and not really like the liberals so we should verify they are fairly summarizing the liberal proposed law by actually reading the law in question (what parent did) vs for example, national post leans right therefore everything they say is bullshit and should be ignored (which would be an ad hominem)

> Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument

No, it’s when you argue the truth based on dismissing the speaker. So if Carl is an idiot, and Carl says cats are real, it would be ad hominem to say cat’s aren’t real because Carl said so. (Dismissing an argument isn’t ad hominem per se. Neither is name calling. It’s concluding based on not liking the speaker.)

Pointing out bias when debating an opinion hardly sounds ad-hominem, and in this case it looks more like OP's way to strengthen the veracity of the report while showing surprise rather than dismissal.

Is it still ad-hominem if you actually agree with Carl? Doesn't it make Carl's argument even stronger when you say "I'm always against Carl but this time he's right" which is the opposite of dismissing his idea, ad hominem or not?

> Is it still ad-hominem if you actually agree with Carl?

If you conclude X is right because Carl said so, it’s argument from authority.

> Doesn't it make Carl's argument even stronger when you say "I'm always against Carl but this time he's right" which is the opposite of dismissing his idea, ad hominem or not?

No. It makes his rhetoric (essentially an argument about an argument) stronger. But not argument per se.

It’s literally the definition of an ad hominem.

adjective - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

A “Right” bias (whether real or perceived) would naturally be expected to be related to many positions they maintained.

And they were given the benefit of a doubt and vindicated (in the commenter’s own opinion).

Meaning their position was judged on its own merits.

So not really ad hominem.

That's not how logical arguments work. Either the argument is correct or it's not. Every other criticism (such as "bias") is an ad hominem.

You are conflating ad hominem with bias?

Ad hominem is a much more specific kind of non-rational argument.

I will refine.

All other arguments, directed at the source of the argument, that don't address the argument itself, are ad hominems.

Saying you didn't expect a good argument from a source due to reputation is not an ad hominem attack.

Their expectation even had a reasonable explanation: their previous encounters with the source (as they saw them).

Then their actual judgment was on the merits.

And even their credibility expectations were based on actual experience (as they interpreted those) with the target, not something irrelevant to credibility.

It is a good example of someone whose experiences might have prompted them to make an ad hominem attack, but who didn't. The opposite of making such an attack if there is one.

When someone prejudged a claim based on who made it, that’s an ad hominem.

Kudos that OP actually read it, but that doesn’t change “I thought the argument was weak because of who made it”

Your claim is almost true if, by “logical argument”, you mean specifically a deductive argument, and you expand “ad hominem” into “irrelevant”.

Bust most real-world news stories and other interesting claims of material fact (and even moreso, claims of things being good or bad) are not syllogisms where the major and minor premise are trivially verifiable and the conclusion either follows of logical necessity or not, but are, to the extent they can be framed as arguments, inductive arguments.

You are also wrong about what ad hominem is (there are plenty of counterarguments to a logical argument that are neither on point not ad honinem), but the bigger issue is that the subject here is mot a logical argument in th sense that would make your claim correct insofar as rejecting all counterarguments that do not falsify the argument by logical necessity.

The Globe and Mail is a reputable and respectable publication but The National Post is an American-owned right wing propaganda paper. I won't apologize for calling them as I see them.

Both The Globe and Mail and The National Post serve the Capital, regardless of its provenance.

The G&M is a left-wing propaganda paper. What's your point?

I guess his point is, nick aint sorry.. guess that means something to nick that doesn't apply to most readers.

The Globe and Mail is a very right leaning newspaper. The National Post is a far-right echo chamber rag; it's the Toronto Sun for people who can read without moving their lips. In all cases it is important to interpret editorial content in light of their well-established biases, just as it is with any other curated source of information.

Ad hominem is an argument that a claim should be rejected because of something about the person making it. "This source has a history of bias, so you should assume this article is biased" is ad hominem.

"This source has a history of bias, but this article is accurate" is the opposite; it tells the reader not to draw an ad hominem conclusion.