History Main / AdHominem

!!'''Two Wrongs Make a Right'''

* The "[[KickTheSonOfABitch He had it coming]]" argument

A more general form of Tu quoque, this is [[RevengeTropes "justifying" one's own wrongdoing by arguing that someone else did some other wrong]]. This is fallacious as it can be used to justify any wrong, because [[CycleOfRevenge someone can always find another wrong to point to.]]

-->"My sister broke my toy so I pushed her in the mud. Now we're even."

A variant in logical debating is to argue your own use of a fallacious argument is justified if it is a rebuttal to an argument that uses the same fallacy.

!!! Examples:
* Shoshanna from ''{{Inglorious Basterds}}'' is a psychotic, merciless and sadistic killer, yet everyone (even this site) sees her as "cool" or "an {{Action Girl}}" just because her victims are Nazis.
* The Cellblock Tango in ''{{Chicago}}'' (both the the stage musical and the movie) is composed almost entirely of this fallacy (except for The Hunyak's verse). The chorus makes it crystal clear:
--> He had it coming!
--> He had it coming!
--> He only had himself to blame;
--> If you'd have been there
--> If you'd have seen it
--> I betcha you would have done the same!
* In Harry Harrison's ''TheStainlessSteelRat'' series, James often indulges in this; It's perfectly acceptable for him to steal money from companies or governments, because they got it in the first place by taking it unfairly from the poor sheep of citizens.
----
!! '''Style Over Substance'''
!!! Also called:

* If you want to email JackThompson and argue against his beliefs about video games, mention that you're a gamer and that will be all he needs to fire an ad hominem sniper rifle at your counterpoints.

A common version is to dismiss an entire argument if the person making it uses bad language or insults, claiming that since they cannot conduct themselves politely, they obviously have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion. Throwing someone out for breaking rules of conduct is not fallacious, but throwing their ''arguments'' out on this basis certainly is.

* The {{Most Triumphant Example}} is Shoshanna from ''{{Inglorious Basterds}}''. Shoshanna is a psychotic, merciless and sadistic killer, yet everyone (even this site) sees her as "cool" or "an {{Action Girl}}" just because her victims are Nazis.

* The {{Most Triumphant Example}} is Shoshanna from ''{{Inglorius Basterds}}''. Shoshanna is an psychotic, merciless and sadistic killer, yet everyone (even this site) sees her as "cool" or "an {{Action Girl}}" just because her victims are Nazis.

::Another type of Ad Hominem, Tu Quoque refers to the attempt to deny an argument by asserting that the person presenting the argument either suffers from the same flaw (i.e. they do not practice what they preach) or has held an opposing view in the past. Being a hypocrite means that the things you say and do cannot all be true (since the term requires they contradict), but this does not mean any given one is false.

-->'''Alice:''' "But you yourself smoke! Therefore your argument is invalid."

-->'''Alice:''' "You supported the bill last month, so obviously you're wrong."

Bob's new argument is not invalidated by any previous position he may have held.

This attacks the encyclopedia as a whole, but does not actually identify anything wrong with the section being cited. The intent is to discredit ''the source of the information'', and by extension, the information itself.

Despite the fact that the Weekly World News was noted for being full of made-up stories, George Washington ''was'' the first President of the United States.

The attack is made directly on the person making the argument. An excellent example from ''{{Futurama}}'':

-->Clyde Smith: There's a gremlin destroying the plane. You gotta believe me!
-->Sebastian Cabot: Why should I believe you? [[GodwinsLaw You're Hitler]]!

While Hitler certainly [[{{Understatement}} wasn't a nice person]], that in itself is no reason to [[HitlerAteSugar dismiss anything he says out of hand]]. This even applies when the ad hominem attack itself is ''related'' to the argument. Even if the supposition comes from a source that is known for fallibility or may have a reason to be biased, that does not in itself make it untrue.

** Note that this would still be a fallacy if the speaker went on to say "...therefore you're wrong" as opposed to "...therefore you aren't necessarily right."

::Bob's new argument is not invalidated by any previous position he may have held.

* Used in an episode of ''{{Scrubs}}'', when Eliot railed at the "hypocrisy" of Dr Cox advising someone to calm down for the sake of his blood pressure, or Dr Kelso telling a patient to stop smoking. When she herself got a patient who was fainting due to being slightly less underweight than she was, she initially tried to build her own weight in concert with the patient, but eventually realised "This is about you, not me."

* When it brings up a ''valid'' point about the speaker's reliability, for example, they are drunk or have previously been established to be a compulsive liar.
* When the value of the speaker's word is being considered in order to evaluate his statements as testimony. It is not fallacious for a court to consider the reliability of a witness doubtful if they find he has a history of committing perjury or has accepted money in exchange for his testimony; only if his testimony is ''discarded out of hand'' on this basis, regardless of what it actually is.
* 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 he did it because he saw his father doing it, therefore it is not valid to punish him on that basis.

* The "He had it coming" argument

A more general form of Tu quoque, this is "justifying" one's own wrongdoing by arguing that someone else did some other wrong. This is fallacious as it can be used to justify any wrong, because someone can always find another wrong to point to.

* Grammar Nazi

Another sub-type of Ad Hominem, the style over substance fallacy is where the manner in which an argument is presented is held to affect the validity of that argument.

Another common variant is to disregard an argument presented in an allegedly incorrect manner; for example, because it is too long, too short, badly-spelled, badly punctuated, or uses poor grammar. Not making the effort to make a coherent, concise reply is certainly rude, but as above, being rude is not the same as being wrong. This fallacy is quite common in internet discussions and boils down to "You didn't present your argument the way I like, therefore it is wrong."

Note that saying "Your argument is presented prroly, 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.

Another common variant is to disregard an argument presented in an allegedly incorrect manner; for example, because it is too long, too short, badly-spelled, badly punctuated, or uses poor grammar. Not making the effort to make a coherent, concise reply is certainly rude, but as above, being rude is not the same as being wrong. This fallacy is quite common in internet discussions and boils down to "You didn't present your argument the way I like, therefore I will ignore it completely."

Despite the fact that the Weekly World News was noted for being full of made-up stories, George Washington ''was'' the first President of the United States.[[hottip:*:Bad example actually, this one seems to be untrue...http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.htmlhttp://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html]]

Despite the fact that the Weekly World News was noted for being full of made-up stories, George Washington ''was'' the first President of the United States.

* When it is brings up a ''valid'' point about the speaker's reliability, for example, they are drunk or have previously been established to be a compulsive liar.

* When an insult is present but is not used as a component of a logical argument. Simply saying "You are an idiot" is not polite, but unless there's a "therefore" step to a conclusion, it is not a fallacy.

!! '''Circumstantial Ad Hominem''':

!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Tu Quoque]]''' ("You, too!"):

!!'''Two wrongs make a right'''

!!! Also called

----

-> ''When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.''

-> ''The thing I love about this is, on the internet, people make a big deal out of the distinction between calling someone names as a way of ''refuting'' their arguments, and calling someone names [[ForTheLulz just as a kind of a hobby.]]''
-->-- LoreSjoberg

When the circumstances of the arguer are held to affect the truth of the argument. It's frequently rolled out against people who have any kind of motive for making their argument (the "he ''would'' say that, wouldn't he?" defense). It's more unreasonable to expect someone to have ''no'' reason to hold their viewpoint; their vested interest does not automatically invalidate their criticism.

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 'Four Terms' fallacy, you stupid retard, therefore you're using faulty logic" is not Ad Hominem. "Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into whether we should buy a pool, but he ''is'' a convicted felon" is.

While Hitler certainly [[{{Understatement}} wasn't a nice person]], that in itself is no reason to dismiss anything he says out of hand. This even applies when the ad hominem attack itself is ''related'' to the argument. Even if the supposition comes from a source that is known for fallibility or may have a reason to be biased, that does not in itself make it untrue.

:: Refuting an argument by attacking some aspect of the presentation of it, rather than addressing the content of the argument itself. It can consist of an attack on the person making the argument; the source of their information; their circumstances; their previous position; a discrepancy between their actions and their argument; or the style in which the argument is presented.

:: 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 'Four Terms' fallacy, you stupid retard, therefore you're using faulty logic" is not Ad Hominem. "Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into whether we should buy a pool, but he ''is'' a convicted felon" is.

::The attack is made directly on the person making the argument. An excellent example from ''{{Futurama}}'':

::While Hitler certainly [[{{Understatement}} wasn't a nice person]], that in itself is no reason to dismiss anything he says out of hand. This even applies when the ad hominem attack itself is ''related'' to the argument. Even if the supposition comes from a source that is known for fallibility or may have a reason to be biased, that does not in itself make it untrue.

::Despite the fact that the Weekly World News was noted for being full of made-up stories, George Washington ''was'' the first President of the United States.

:: When the circumstances of the arguer are held to affect the truth of the argument. It's frequently rolled out against people who have any kind of motive for making their argument (the "he ''would'' say that, wouldn't he?" defense). It's more unreasonable to expect someone to have ''no'' reason to hold their viewpoint; their vested interest does not automatically invalidate their criticism.

:: 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 Appeal to Authority; here, the attempt is to make an audience reject a claim because of the speaker's alleged ''lack'' of authority.

:: The attempt here is to preemptively discredit Bob's standing as a lawyer not on the basis of what he's actually saying, but on where he was schooled.

:: This attacks the encyclopedia as a whole, but does not actually identify anything wrong with the section being cited. The intent is to discredit ''the source of the information'', and by extension, the information itself.

::The fact that Bob is a smoker doesn't mean that he is wrong about the effects of smoking.

:: A more general form of Tu quoque, this is "justifying" one's own wrongdoing by arguing that someone else did some other wrong. This is fallacious as it can be used to justify any wrong, because someone can always find another wrong to point to.

::A variant in logical debating is to argue your own use of a fallacious argument is justified if it is a rebuttal to an argument that uses the same fallacy.

:: Another sub-type of Ad Hominem, the style over substance fallacy is where the manner in which an argument is presented is held to affect the validity of that argument.

:: A common version is to dismiss an entire argument if the person making it uses bad language or insults, claiming that since they cannot conduct themselves politely, they obviously have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion. Throwing someone out for breaking rules of conduct is not fallacious, but throwing their ''arguments'' out on this basis certainly is.

:: Another common variant is to disregard an argument presented in an allegedly incorrect manner; for example, because it is too long, too short, badly-spelled, badly punctuated, or uses poor grammar. Not making the effort to make a coherent, concise reply is certainly rude, but as above, being rude is not the same as being wrong. This fallacy is quite common in internet discussions and boils down to "You didn't present your argument the way I like, therefore I will ignore it completely."