History Main / AdHominem

14th Aug '16 8:08:34 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

%% Image selected per Image Pickin' thread: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1452266899092104700
%% Please do not change or remove without starting a new thread.
%%
[[quoteright:350:[[Webcomic/SaturdayMorningBreakfastCereal http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/ad_hominem.png]]]]
20th Jun '16 11:26:23 PM ArtemisPal
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->'''Bob:''' Evolution is a flawed theory because [[AppealToIgnorance no amount of natural selection could possibly result in so many complex and intricate life-forms.]]

to:

-->'''Bob:''' Evolution is a flawed theory because [[AppealToIgnorance no amount if the complex behaviors some animals display, such as bees Waggle Dance, were a result of the trial and error process that is natural selection could possibly result in so many complex and intricate life-forms.]]selection, most of them would've died off before evolving into their current forms.
7th May '16 6:39:15 PM eroock
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->--DeadpanSnarker Dendrophilian of Website/YouTube

to:

-->--DeadpanSnarker -->-- DeadpanSnarker Dendrophilian of Website/YouTube
2nd May '16 12:28:45 PM TheOneWhoTropes
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Most accusations of WhiteKnighting are intended to discredit the accused by making it seem as if they have a self-interested reason to hold their stated position. While this ''may'' be true, it does not make said position any less valid.

to:

* Most accusations of WhiteKnighting white knighting are intended to discredit the accused by making it seem as if they have a self-interested reason to hold their stated position. While this ''may'' be true, it does not make said position any less valid.
1st Apr '16 9:57:35 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* About the earlier "You criticize X, but you're using something by X" argument: If this is used to discredit ''any'' facts he says, then it is wrong (for example, you support human rights but continue to use Apple products that you know were made through Chinese slave labor. That does not mean you are automatically wrong about your human rights opinions). If this is used to point out that the speaker's recommendations should not yet be trusted, then it isn't AHTQ. (For example, it is not a fallacy if you ask first why Luddites keep using computers instead of living an all-natural example. If the conclusion is that "this hypocrite can't be trusted", then it can bring up a valid question. If this is used to mean "Luddites are completely wrong about everything", then it is AHTQ).

to:

* About the earlier "You criticize X, but you're using something by X" argument: If this is used to discredit ''any'' facts he says, then it is wrong (for example, you support human rights but continue to use Apple products that you know were made through Chinese slave labor. That does not mean you are automatically wrong about your human rights opinions). If this is used to point out that the speaker's recommendations should not yet be trusted, then it isn't AHTQ. (For example, it is not a fallacy if you ask first why Luddites keep using computers instead of living an all-natural example.without such things. If the conclusion is that "this hypocrite can't be trusted", then it can bring up a valid question. If this is used to mean "Luddites are completely wrong about everything", then it is AHTQ).



* When the opponent is using a fallacious Proof by Verbosity (aka the Gish Gallop); firing so many ''weak'' points off that it is impossible to respond to them within the format of the debate. In essence, the opponent may have nothing but mud to sell, but by piling it up so thick so quickly they hope to pass it off as rock solid. One [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Debates example here]], from Duane Gish. The Proof by Verbosity is an ''informal'' fallacy.


to:

* When the opponent is using a fallacious Proof by Verbosity (aka the Gish Gallop); firing so many ''weak'' points off that it is impossible to respond to them within the format of the debate. In essence, the opponent may have nothing but mud to sell, but by piling it up so thick so quickly they hope to pass it off as rock solid. One This comes [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Debates example here]], from Duane Gish.Gish]], who used the tactic frequently. The Proof by Verbosity is an ''informal'' fallacy.

27th Mar '16 8:01:40 AM mlsmithca
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Additionally, SuperDoc, OpenHeartDentistry, and OmnidisciplinaryScientist are averted in real life, while NotThatKindOfDoctor is not. This is a response to an implicit or explicit appeal to an illegitimate authority.
--> Dr. Smith: "Procainamide is clearly indicated in this patient."
--> Dr. Jones: "Nonsense, he should receive amiodarone."
--> Patient: "With all due respect, Doctor Smith, you hold a PhD in biochemistry, and Doctor Jones, you are a gastroenterologist. I'm waiting for my cardiologist."

to:

*** ** Additionally, SuperDoc, OpenHeartDentistry, and OmnidisciplinaryScientist are averted in real life, while NotThatKindOfDoctor is not. This is a response to an implicit or explicit appeal to an illegitimate authority.
--> Dr. Smith: "Procainamide --->'''Dr. Smith:''' Procainamide is clearly indicated in this patient."
--> Dr. Jones: "Nonsense,
patient.
--->'''Dr. Jones:''' Nonsense,
he should receive amiodarone."
--> Patient: "With
amiodarone.
--->'''Patient:''' With
all due respect, Doctor Smith, you hold a PhD [=PhD=] in biochemistry, and Doctor Jones, you are a gastroenterologist. I'm waiting for my cardiologist."
26th Mar '16 9:08:00 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* During an Australia vs. England {{Cricket}} match, Mike Atherton edged the ball to wicket keeper Ian Healy, but was given "not out", prompting the following exchange:

to:

* During an Australia vs. England {{Cricket}} UsefulNotes/{{Cricket}} match, Mike Atherton edged the ball to wicket keeper Ian Healy, but was given "not out", prompting the following exchange:
26th Feb '16 4:11:14 PM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* 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, MelGibson's alcoholism and racism).

to:

* 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, MelGibson's Creator/MelGibson's alcoholism and racism).



** TheDailyShow had a great example of one on their March 31st, 2014 episode. Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey as of the time of writing (April 2014), was embattled in a scandal regarding blocking a bridge out of spite. Governor Christie announced the result of an inquiry done by his own hand-picked legal team. The report exonerated Christie. Jon Stewart dismissed the report just on the grounds that it came from Christie's office. That is a clear case of this fallacy. However, it would be a case of the FallacyFallacy to say that Jon's ad hominem ''proves'' Governor Christie is in the clear, as it's certainly reasonable to be suspicious.

to:

** TheDailyShow ''Series/TheDailyShow'' had a great example of one on their March 31st, 2014 episode. Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey as of the time of writing (April 2014), was embattled in a scandal regarding blocking a bridge out of spite. Governor Christie announced the result of an inquiry done by his own hand-picked legal team. The report exonerated Christie. Jon Stewart dismissed the report just on the grounds that it came from Christie's office. That is a clear case of this fallacy. However, it would be a case of the FallacyFallacy to say that Jon's ad hominem ''proves'' Governor Christie is in the clear, as it's certainly reasonable to be suspicious.



* ReeferMadnessTheMusical features a propagandist who uses this when a parent objects to the propagandist's absurd story about marijuana abuse. He starts by using an AppealToWealth and AppealToAuthority to point out that William Randolph Hearst agrees with his position, then demands to know where the man matriculated. When the man doesn't know the word matriculate, the propagandist goes in for the kill and makes the man admit he never went to college. The propagandist then dismisses the man entirely. Later, he takes it a step further by claiming the man's views are "extreme" and "Un-American."

to:

* ReeferMadnessTheMusical ''Film/ReeferMadnessTheMusical'' features a propagandist who uses this when a parent objects to the propagandist's absurd story about marijuana abuse. He starts by using an AppealToWealth and AppealToAuthority to point out that William Randolph Hearst agrees with his position, then demands to know where the man matriculated. When the man doesn't know the word matriculate, the propagandist goes in for the kill and makes the man admit he never went to college. The propagandist then dismisses the man entirely. Later, he takes it a step further by claiming the man's views are "extreme" and "Un-American."
2nd Feb '16 6:33:58 PM hamza678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Another example is how (former) drug addicts who have suffered for their drug usage can also be very well qualified in admonishing others to not get started in harmful, expensive, illegal, and addictive substances (sometimes even more so due to personal experience and physical proof of the damage incurred by the drug addiction). They may be challenged on this point only if they adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and [[BlatantLies act as if they were never addicted at all]], or make self-serving excuses ("I was manipulated by an AggressiveDrugDealer, while ''you'' made the stupid decision to do drugs yourself.").

to:

Another example is how (former) drug addicts who have suffered for their drug usage can also be very well qualified in admonishing others to not get started in harmful, expensive, illegal, and addictive substances (sometimes even more so due to personal experience and physical proof of the damage incurred by the drug addiction). They may be challenged on this point only if they adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and [[BlatantLies act as if they were never addicted at all]], or make self-serving excuses ("I was manipulated by an AggressiveDrugDealer, TheAggressiveDrugDealer, while ''you'' made the stupid decision to do drugs yourself.").
31st Jan '16 9:15:42 PM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** In the interests of fairness, it should also be noted that it's not entirely unheard of for [[SoapBoxSadie certain social justice advocates]] to casually fling accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia etc. at their opponents to try and discredit them whether these accusations are warranted or not.

to:

** In the interests of fairness, it should also be noted that it's not entirely unheard of for [[SoapBoxSadie certain social justice advocates]] to casually fling accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia etc. at their opponents to try and discredit them whether these accusations are warranted or not.
This list shows the last 10 events of 151. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.AdHominem