History Main / AdHominem

27th Jan '18 7:16:26 AM Luigifan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


->''"If a crazy serial killer who believes he is surrounded by Teletubbies argues that if you drop a ball, it'll fall to the ground, because gravity will pull the ball towards the Earth, is he wrong? Do the arguments become less valid because you think there's something wrong with the person behind the arguments? Will the ball start falling upwards from now on?"''

to:

->''"If a crazy serial killer who believes he is surrounded by Teletubbies argues that if you drop a ball, it'll fall to the ground, because gravity will pull the ball towards the Earth, is he wrong? Do the arguments become less valid [[DamnedByAFoolsPraise because you think there's something wrong with the person behind the arguments? arguments]]? Will the ball start falling upwards from now on?"''



A good discussion of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy on the Internet may be found [[http://archive.today/UBJGx on the website of one Stephen Bond]]. See also DontShootTheMessage, HitlerAteSugar, NoYou, HypocriteHasAPoint.

to:

A good discussion of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy on the Internet may be found [[http://archive.today/UBJGx on the website of one Stephen Bond]]. See also DontShootTheMessage, HitlerAteSugar, NoYou, HypocriteHasAPoint. DamnedByAFoolsPraise is also closely related.
19th Nov '17 12:58:42 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Whataboutism: "You object to X, but what about Y?" Tries to discredit the person or deflect their point by asking why they didn't bring up a different point. Often includes a False Equivalency fallacy.

to:

* Whataboutism: "You object to X, but what about Y?" Tries to discredit the person or deflect their point by asking why they didn't bring up a different point. Often includes a False Equivalency fallacy.
19th Nov '17 12:55:29 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The most pernicious manifestation is where entire groups are potentially shut out of the discussion:

to:

The most pernicious manifestation is where entire groups are potentially shut out of the discussion:
discussion, often based on demonstrably false premises:



** American whites can't talk about slavery because they never experienced it.[[note]]Jews (who are usually considered white) experienced an equally long amount of time as slaves in Babylon and various other places, making the antisemitism present in some black radical circles [[WeAreStrugglingTogether even more ridiculous]].[[/note]]

to:

** American whites can't talk about slavery because they never experienced it.[[note]]Jews (who are usually considered white) experienced [[note]]Indentured servitude (effectively slavery with the serial numbers filed off) was extremely common in pre-revolutionary America with an equally long amount estimated one-half to two-thirds of time as white immigrants to the Americas between the 1630s and the American Revolution arriving under a contract of indenture, far more than the number of Black slaves in Babylon and various other places, making transported to North America during the antisemitism present in some black radical circles [[WeAreStrugglingTogether even more ridiculous]].transatlantic slave trade era.[[/note]]
19th Nov '17 12:47:47 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Read an article about social justice and related topics. Now read the comments about how often the ''entire'' argument is somehow rendered meaningless because of who said it. If you get in any debate about social justice, expect to see this thrown around a ''lot'' from both sides.

to:

* Read an article about social justice (pro or anti, it doesn't matter) and related topics. Now read the comments about how often the ''entire'' argument is somehow rendered meaningless because of who said it. If you get in any debate about social justice, expect to see this thrown around a ''lot'' from both sides.



* Attacking a person for having some character flaw that does not adversely affect or negate the things that he or she is famous for. Therefore, something like [[ItsNotSupposedToWinOscars "He's not the Pope!" or "He's not Jesus!"]] is not a valid comeback; at issue is not whether the person has a right to be famous, but whether he or she can be considered a good role model ''due'' to that fame (Pete Rose's gambling, Creator/MelGibson's alcoholism and antisemitism).
19th Nov '17 12:45:36 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->The [[LuridTalesOfDoom Weekly World News]] says that UsefulNotes/GeorgeWashington was the first president of the United States.

It would be quite logically sound to say "Why should we take their word for it? They're unreliable and biased!" It is not sound, however, to say that the above statement ''must'' be false, because despite the fact that the Weekly World News was noted for being full of made-up stories, UsefulNotes/GeorgeWashington ''was'' the first President of the United States-and this was common knowledge long before ''Weekly World News'' existed.

to:

-->The -->'''Bob:''' The [[LuridTalesOfDoom Weekly World News]] says that UsefulNotes/GeorgeWashington was the first president of the United States.

States.\\
'''Alice:''' The Weekly World News is unreliable, so it must have been someone else.

It would be quite logically sound to say "Why should we take their word for it? They're unreliable and biased!" it?" It is not sound, however, to say that the above statement ''must'' be false, because despite the fact that the Weekly World News was noted for being full of made-up stories, UsefulNotes/GeorgeWashington ''was'' the first President of the United States-and this was common knowledge long before ''Weekly World News'' existed.
States.
11th Nov '17 1:25:11 PM Jeduthun
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* Whataboutism: "You object to X, but what about Y?" Tries to discredit the person or deflect their point by asking why they didn't bring up a different point. Often includes a False Equivalency fallacy.
24th Jul '17 11:45:24 AM razorrozar7
Is there an issue? Send a Message


While [[{{Understatement}} Hitler certainly wasn't a nice person]], that in itself is unrelated to [[HitlerAteSugar the logical validity of any arguments he makes]]. This extends to a degree in situations where the ad hominem attack itself is ''related'' to the argument; if the supposition comes from a source that is known for fallibility or may have a reason to be biased, it should be treated with healthy skepticism, but not assumed to be false.

to:

While [[{{Understatement}} Hitler certainly wasn't a nice person]], person, that in itself is unrelated to [[HitlerAteSugar the logical validity of any arguments he makes]]. This extends to a degree in situations where the ad hominem attack itself is ''related'' to the argument; if the supposition comes from a source that is known for fallibility or may have a reason to be biased, it should be treated with healthy skepticism, but not assumed to be false.
8th Jun '17 9:41:47 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Ad hominem is very often mistakenly claimed in cases where an argument's opponent attacks its proponent ''in addition to presenting a valid counterargument''. "You're stupid, therefore your argument is invalid" is an ''ad hominem''; "your argument is invalid, therefore you're stupid" (or "Your argument is invalid ''and'' you're stupid") is not. "You've used the '[[FourTermsFallacy Four Terms]]' fallacy, you stupid idiot, therefore you're using faulty logic" is not Ad Hominem (although it might be FallacyFallacy if done badly). "Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into whether we should buy a pool, but he ''is'' a convicted felon" is.

to:

Ad hominem is very often mistakenly claimed in cases where an argument's opponent attacks its proponent ''in addition to presenting a valid counterargument''. "You're stupid, therefore your argument is invalid" is an ''ad hominem''; "your argument is invalid, therefore you're stupid" (or "Your argument is invalid ''and'' you're stupid") is not. Similarly, some people seem to think that Ad Hominem is necessarily abusive, which it isn't. "You've used the '[[FourTermsFallacy Four Terms]]' fallacy, you stupid idiot, therefore you're using faulty logic" is not Ad Hominem (although it might be FallacyFallacy if done badly). "Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into whether we should buy a pool, but he ''is'' a convicted felon" is.
2nd Jun '17 8:28:17 PM coldrolxnd
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Ad hominem is very often mistakenly claimed in cases where an argument's opponent attacks its proponent ''in addition to presenting a valid counterargument''. "You're stupid, therefore your argument is invalid" is an ''ad hominem''; "your argument is invalid, therefore you're stupid" (or "Your argument is invalid ''and'' you're stupid") is not. Similarly, some people seem to think that Ad Hominem is necessarily abusive, which it isn't. "You've used the '[[FourTermsFallacy Four Terms]]' fallacy, you stupid idiot, therefore you're using faulty logic" is not Ad Hominem (although it might be FallacyFallacy if done badly). "Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into whether we should buy a pool, but he ''is'' a convicted felon" is.

to:

Ad hominem is very often mistakenly claimed in cases where an argument's opponent attacks its proponent ''in addition to presenting a valid counterargument''. "You're stupid, therefore your argument is invalid" is an ''ad hominem''; "your argument is invalid, therefore you're stupid" (or "Your argument is invalid ''and'' you're stupid") is not. Similarly, some people seem to think that Ad Hominem is necessarily abusive, which it isn't. "You've used the '[[FourTermsFallacy Four Terms]]' fallacy, you stupid idiot, therefore you're using faulty logic" is not Ad Hominem (although it might be FallacyFallacy if done badly). "Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into whether we should buy a pool, but he ''is'' a convicted felon" is.
17th May '17 7:56:59 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Two specific cases of Tu Quoque are Whataboutism, where a criticism of a group by an external critic is deflected with a claim that something the critic's group is associated with is just as bad or worse, and ''ergo decedo'' ("therefore leave") where it is suggested that a criticism of a group by an ''internal'' source shows the critic is either ignorant, treacherous or ungrateful, taking its name from the usual conclusion that if they are not happy with "the way we do things," they should leave the group. The latter is basically the [[No True Scotsman]] fallacy used offensively.

to:

Two specific cases of Tu Quoque are Whataboutism, '''Whataboutism''', where a criticism of a group by an external critic is deflected with a claim that something the critic's group is associated with is just as bad or worse, and ''ergo decedo'' '''''ergo decedo''''' ("therefore leave") where it is suggested that a criticism of a group by an ''internal'' source shows the critic is either ignorant, treacherous or ungrateful, taking its name from the usual conclusion that if they are not happy with "the way we do things," they should leave the group. The latter is basically the [[No True Scotsman]] NoTrueScotsman fallacy used offensively.
This list shows the last 10 events of 185. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.AdHominem