-- Posted by Lewdness at 6:03 pm on June 30, 2009 Can anyone help me out? We're studying logical fallacies in my Philosophy class and a few of them are kind of getting mixed for me. 1) The NY Times should not give lessons on journalistic integrity because it does not hold the same moral high ground it preaches. -- My gut reaction was that this was "Ad hominem" but the more I look at it, it seems more "Genetic fallacy". But I'm not sure. 2) The NY Times should not give lessons on journalistic integrity because if they had been the first to release the story it would have been touted all over. -- Gut reaction was "Red Herring" but could it be "Ad hominem"? -- Posted by lonely 1 at 6:04 pm on June 30, 2009 way above me sorry mate -- Posted by Stormblazer at 6:05 pm on June 30, 2009 I don't think either of those qualify as ad hominem. Insults, personal attacks, etc are ad hominem, it's where you are attacking the person/origin of the argument rather than anything regarding the argument itself. -- Posted by Lewdness at 6:13 pm on June 30, 2009 Quote: from Stormblazer at 6:05 pm on June 30, 2009 I don't think either of those qualify as ad hominem. Insults, personal attacks, etc are ad hominem, it's where you are attacking the person/origin of the argument rather than anything regarding the argument itself. Well, I thought 1 was ad hominem because it is something of a personal attack. They're attacking NYT's personal ethics... but I mean, it's a newspaper not a human which is why I'm confused. The same can be said for 2.