History Main / AdHominem

14th Mar '17 11:08:49 AM DavidDelony
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* Conservatives frequently accuse progressives of being intolerant and closed-minded toward conservative views when they accuse conservatives of being intolerant and closed-minded.
11th Mar '17 1:11:31 PM Fireblood
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, Creator/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, Creator/MelGibson's alcoholism and racism).antisemitism).



The fact that Bob is a smoker and drinker doesn't mean that he is wrong about the effects of those habits. Still confused? A better rebuttal would be to accept the premise that alcohol and smoking really are cancer risks, but then ask why Bob continues to do them. Perhaps Bob knows full well about the dangers of such addictions, but he may or may not be a hedonist with no sense of self-preservation, or it's just because he cannot or is yet to break from his very own addiction, hence why he continues to do it. Or because he is consciously or unconsciously suicidal, which makes his self-harm a logical consequence. Or he could know that he shouldn't be smoking, but [[WeakWilled not have the willpower to resist the temptation to do it]]. (Of course, if Bob mysteriously continues to survive and never even gets sick, Alice may have a point about his being wrong.)

to:

The fact that Bob is a smoker and drinker doesn't mean that he is wrong about the effects of those habits. Still confused? A better rebuttal would be to accept the premise that alcohol and smoking really are cancer risks, but then ask why Bob continues to do them. Perhaps Bob knows full well about the dangers of such addictions, but he may or may not be a hedonist with no sense of self-preservation, or it's just because he cannot or is yet to break from his very own addiction, hence why he continues to do it. Or because he is consciously or unconsciously suicidal, which makes his self-harm a logical consequence. Or he could know that he shouldn't be smoking, but [[WeakWilled not have the willpower to resist the temptation to do it]]. (Of course, if Bob mysteriously continues to survive and never even gets sick, Alice may have a point about his being wrong.)



Now, simply pointing out a contradiction in someone's arguments is not Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. A fallacy must be a component of a logical argument, and it is not an argument unless a conclusion is drawn from the observed contradiction. Therefore, Tu Quoque only applies when it is argued the opponent's argument ''is wrong because'' it contradicts a previous position they've held. Once again, [[SoundValidTrue his reasoning might be unsound, but that does not affect the truth value of his premises]]. Bob's new argument is not invalidated by any previous position he may have held.

to:

Now, simply pointing out a contradiction in someone's arguments is not Ad Hominem a Tu Quoque. A fallacy must be a component of a logical argument, and it is not an argument unless a conclusion is drawn from the observed contradiction. Therefore, Tu Quoque only applies when it is argued the opponent's argument ''is wrong because'' it contradicts a previous position they've held. Once again, [[SoundValidTrue his reasoning might be unsound, but that does not affect the truth value of his premises]]. Bob's new argument is not invalidated by any previous position he may have held.



* People facing ''ad hominem'' accusations of misogyny, racism or homophobia commonly respond with countercharges of [[DoesNotLikeMen misandry]], [[MalcolmXerox reverse racism]][[note]]with the [[BeggingTheQuestion dubious]] implication that racism has default and reverse states, as opposed to a single state that appears whenever someone denigrates a racial group other than their own[[/note]] and [[HetIsEw heterophobia]], respectively, thereby fighting fallacy with fallacy.

to:

* People facing ''ad hominem'' accusations of misogyny, racism or homophobia commonly respond with countercharges of [[DoesNotLikeMen misandry]], [[MalcolmXerox reverse racism]][[note]]with racism]][[note]]With the [[BeggingTheQuestion dubious]] implication that racism has default and reverse states, as opposed to a single state that appears whenever someone denigrates a racial group other than their own[[/note]] and [[HetIsEw heterophobia]], respectively, thereby fighting fallacy with fallacy.



* 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 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).

to:

* About the earlier "You criticize X, but you're using something by X" argument: If 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 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).



This is sometimes called a "tone" argument. When brought up on message boards, it's often called "tone trolling" if the post only complains of some other poster's "tone" without adding to a discussion. Since people are often passionate about things that affect them personally and ''cannot'' detach themselves from the associated feelings, this use of the fallacy is often summarised as "victory goes to whoever cares the least."

to:

This is sometimes called a "tone" argument. When brought up on message boards, it's often called "tone trolling" if the post only complains of some other poster's "tone" without adding to a discussion. Since people are often passionate about things that affect them personally and ''cannot'' detach themselves from the associated feelings, this use of the fallacy is often summarised summarized as "victory goes to whoever cares the least."
19th Feb '17 11:04:46 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Poisoning the Well: The attack on the person is intended to call into question ''everything'' they say.

to:

* Poisoning the Well: The A usually-preemptive attack on the person a source of information is intended to call into question ''everything'' they say.it says.



This fallacy can be one of two types, either discrediting the opponent before they even begin to make their argument, usually by a direct ad hominem against them-"And might I just remind the audience before Alice speaks that she is a convicted felon?"-or by calling the validity of their sources or standing into question after they have made their argument. More or less the converse of AppealToAuthority; here, the attempt is to make an audience reject a claim because of the speaker's alleged lack of authority.

to:

This fallacy can be one of two types, either discrediting the opponent before they even begin to make their argument, usually by a direct ad hominem against them-"And them - "And might I just remind the audience before Alice speaks that she is a convicted felon?"-or felon?" - or by calling the validity of their sources or standing into question after they have made their argument. More or less the converse of AppealToAuthority; here, the attempt is to make an audience reject a claim because of the speaker's alleged lack of authority.
13th Feb '17 7:55:45 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* When the opponent complains of tone, but doesn't use this as an argument. For instance, they might find the way that the opponent presented it overly hostile, obnoxious, etc., while this isn't used as evidence of their argument being invalid. It would be best to carefully separate this out, however, so a tone argument isn't inferred.
7th Feb '17 8:24:24 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Now, simply pointing out a contradiction in someone's arguments is not Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. AHTQ is when you claim the other person's argument ''is wrong because'' they're contradicting something else they've said. Once again, [[SoundValidTrue his reasoning might be unsound, but that does not affect the truth value of his premises]]. Bob's new argument is not invalidated by any previous position he may have held. A logically sound counterargument would be to restate the reasoning behind Bob's previous position to him and ask why he changed his mind from that line of thinking, which makes it acceptable.

to:

Now, simply pointing out a contradiction in someone's arguments is not Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. AHTQ A fallacy must be a component of a logical argument, and it is not an argument unless a conclusion is drawn from the observed contradiction. Therefore, Tu Quoque only applies when you claim it is argued the other person's opponent's argument ''is wrong because'' they're contradicting something else it contradicts a previous position they've said.held. Once again, [[SoundValidTrue his reasoning might be unsound, but that does not affect the truth value of his premises]]. Bob's new argument is not invalidated by any previous position he may have held. A logically sound counterargument would held.

This can
be to restate the reasoning behind Bob's particularly irritating if used in combination with a Strawman version of a previous position: the final nail in this particular coffin is usually ArgumentumAdNauseam, demanding the opponent justify their current argument's alleged conflict with a position to him and ask why he changed his mind from that line of thinking, which makes it acceptable.
they never actually held, while refusing all attempts at clarification.



* When the opponent is using a dishonest debating technique referred to as Proof by Verbosity or the Gish Gallop; firing so many ''weak'' points off that it is impossible to respond to them within the format of the debate (usually because they require detailed rebuttals or specialist knowledge), with the intention of declaring they have stumped their opponent if even one point is left unaddressed. 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. This comes [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Debates from Duane Gish]], who used the tactic frequently.

to:

* When the opponent is using a dishonest debating technique referred to as Proof by Verbosity or the Gish Gallop; firing so many ''weak'' points off that it is impossible to respond to them within the format of the debate (usually because they require detailed rebuttals or specialist knowledge), with the intention of declaring they have stumped their opponent if even one point is left unaddressed.unaddressed, and robbing them of any time to actually present their own arguments in a timed debate setting. 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. This comes [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Debates from Duane Gish]], who used the tactic frequently.
7th Feb '17 8:12:40 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* When the speaker is arguing that the opponent is treating something as ''uniquely'' wrong, yet has done the same thing themselves. For example, if a boy is sent to his room for being the only person in his house to ever raid the biscuit tin, it would not be fallacious for him to point out that he did it because he saw his father doing it, therefore it is hypocritical to punish him on that basis.

to:

* When the speaker is arguing that the opponent is treating something as ''uniquely'' wrong, yet has done the same thing themselves. For example, if a boy is sent to his room for being the only person in his house to ever raid the biscuit tin, it would not be fallacious for him to point out that he did it because he saw his father doing it, therefore it his punishment is hypocritical to punish him based on that basis.a false premise.
7th Feb '17 8:03:59 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* SockPuppet

to:

* SockPuppet



Note that saying "Your argument is presented poorly, therefore I will not read/listen to it," is ''not'' a logical fallacy, unless you also state that the argument they were making is false because of its poor presentation. Also, someone can actually ''be'' a SockPuppet, but one needs to be careful of who is labeled and why, as this has become a rather popular way on internet forums to discredit dissenting beliefs and vetting attempts.

to:

Note that saying "Your argument is presented poorly, therefore I will not read/listen to it," is ''not'' a logical fallacy, unless you also state that the argument they were making is false because of its poor presentation. Also, someone can actually ''be'' a SockPuppet, but one needs to be careful of who is labeled and why, as this has become a rather popular way on internet forums to discredit dissenting beliefs and vetting attempts.
presentation.
7th Feb '17 8:01:55 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* When the errors are pointed out simply for the sake of pointing out the errors, rather than as evidence that the arguer is wrong.
* 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. This comes [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Debates from Duane Gish]], who used the tactic frequently. The Proof by Verbosity is an ''informal'' fallacy.

to:

* When the errors are pointed out simply for the sake of pointing out the errors, rather than as evidence that the arguer is wrong.
wrong. Though this is often referred to as "nitpicking" in debates and is generally frowned upon, since pointing out errors that have nothing to do with the opponent's central point achieves nothing.
* When the opponent is using a fallacious dishonest debating technique referred to as Proof by Verbosity (aka or the Gish Gallop); Gallop; firing so many ''weak'' points off that it is impossible to respond to them within the format of the debate.debate (usually because they require detailed rebuttals or specialist knowledge), with the intention of declaring they have stumped their opponent if even one point is left unaddressed. 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. This comes [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Debates from Duane Gish]], who used the tactic frequently. The Proof by Verbosity is an ''informal'' fallacy.
7th Feb '17 6:41:21 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-> Alice: ''"No, Bob, it's fucked up that women at this job work the same hours for less pay and less opportunities. I've been here eight goddamn years and seen worse-qualified men get promoted above me. Like that brainless shit Andy, you know very well I have to do half his work for him and he gets all the credit. I prepared that presentation he got a bonus for!"

to:

-> Alice: ''"No, Bob, it's fucked up that women at this job work the same hours for less pay and less opportunities. I've been here eight goddamn years and seen worse-qualified men get promoted above me. Like that brainless shit Andy, you know very well I have to do half his work for him and he gets all the credit. I prepared that presentation he got a bonus for!"for!"''
7th Feb '17 6:40:50 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


As a reply to "This fact is true because the Encyclopedia Britannica states as much," this has a sound logical basis; because the cited reason to believe the statement is the credibility of the encyclopedia, an attack on its credibility is relevant and therefore ''not'' an ad hominem. What it ''is'', in fact, is a misleading citation of statistics; these factual errors could be minor misspellings of titles that all occurred in one mistranslated article, for example.

to:

As a reply to "This fact is true because the Encyclopedia Britannica states as much," this has a sound logical basis; because the cited reason to believe the statement is the credibility of the encyclopedia, an attack on its credibility is relevant and therefore ''not'' poisoning the well. However, as a response to ''the fact itself'' it ''is'' a fallacy since the encyclopedia containing other errors does not mean that specific piece of information is an ad hominem. What error: to be specific, it ''is'', in fact, is a misleading citation of statistics; these Hasty Generalization. These factual errors could be minor misspellings of titles that all occurred in one mistranslated article, for example.
This list shows the last 10 events of 173. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.AdHominem