History Main / AdHominem

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.

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.

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.

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.

-->-- DeadpanSnarker Dendrophilian of Website/YouTube

While 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.

* Most people can recognize a simplistic ad hominem attack as humorous, but that didn't stop [=DirecTv=] from flipping out at a spot by Time Warner asserting that "[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anKkX1wvgBw DirecTv hates puppies]]"

* This commonly comes up in any discussion of police or the military overstepping their boundaries, especially in any highly-charged case. If an investigation turns up nothing, regardless of whatever internal investigations were done, there will be cries of "They just want to cover for each other and hush it up!" Of course, the FallacyFallacy also applies-it may indeed be true that there was a cover-up. Real life examples should probably be left to the reader's imagination.
** ''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. Especially after it was later proved he was involved, though not in any legally binding fashion.

* 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).

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.

* 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.

* 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).

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."

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

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.

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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

-> 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!"

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.

** A good example of this was the controversy over ''VideoGame/ResidentEvil5's'' alleged racism. A common rebuttal was that those complaining about a white man shooting black people did not complain about the previous game where a white man was shooting Hispanic people, so a) their complaints were not valid, or b) shooting black people was somehow considered "worse" than shooting Hispanics.

A common version is to dismiss an entire argument if the person making it uses bad language or insults, or sounds "too angry" -- in essence, claiming that since their opponent 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. For example, Alice argues passionately and angrily against the prejudice against women at her job, which results in her and the other female workers being paid less than their male coworkers. Bob tries to dismiss her arguments by saying she is "just angry", but her anger does not invalidate her arguments. 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.

However, objecting to foul language or insults within an argument, while still addressing it (or noting that using them makes it ''hard'' for people to address them, since they can become offended by the arguer and reject it due to that) is not by itself a logical fallacy. A [[FallacyFallacy common accusation]] of "tone trolling" is seen when commenters simply ask that others be addressed politely-they may in fact agree with the arguer, and think this [[DontShootTheMessage will alienate potentially sympathetic readers]].

** Related: Politics in general - "You're a liberal/conservative/any-other-group-I'm-opposed-to, what do you know?"

* Tu Quoque: The attack is that the [[StrawHypocrite person making the argument does the same thing they're arguing against themselves]], or that they, at some previous time, held a different opinion.

----

* Direct-An attack directly on the person making the argument themselves.
* Circumstantial-The attack is on the circumstances surrounding the person making the argument.
* Poisoning the Well-The attack on the person is intended to call into question ''everything'' they say.
* Tu Quoque-The attack is that the [[StrawHypocrite person making the argument does the same thing they're arguing against themselves]], or that they, at some previous time, held a different opinion.

* Style Over Substance-The attack is not on the ''person'' making the argument, but on ''the manner in which they presented it''.

!! '''Direct ad hominem''':

-->UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler: This is an irresponsible fiscal policy because the budget deficit is too great.
-->Politician: I won't listen to you! [[GodwinsLaw You're Hitler]]!

--> 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.

!!! Examples:

** Related: Politics in general - "You're a liberal/conservative, what do you know?"

!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:

----
!! '''Circumstantial ad hominem''':

-->'''Bob:''' "This bill will be expensive and will not work, therefore you should vote against it."
-->'''Alice:''' "Bob is employed by a company which stands to lose money from this bill, therefore Bob will lose money and perhaps his job if this bill passes. ''Of course'' he would oppose it."

!!! Looks like this fallacy, but is not:
* If an individual is supposed to be in a position that ''requires'' them to be objective, such as a judge or a journalist, pointing out a conflict of interest is a valid argument ''against their claimed objectivity'', but does not, in itself, demonstrate any claim they have made is false.
* When used to argue that a person may deserve a higher degree of suspicion than others due to some relevant circumstance. For example, I can logically conclude that someone who's been accused of embezzlement is a bad person to hire for my bank, and it's obviously relevant when I'm making a decision under uncertainty about who to hire.

----
!! '''Poisoning the Well''':

--> "You'll find Bob talks about law an awful lot for a guy who got his degree from Eastern Iowa State University."

** Men can't talk about abortion because they don't get pregnant. [[note]] But they are born; fetuses are male as well as female. [[/note]]
** 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]]
** Rich people who help poor people can't truly sympathize with whom they're helping, so they must be doing it for some selfish reason. [[note]] Rich people aren't incapable of altruism, or of the rational belief that a society free of poverty is best for everyone and demanded by justice. Some rich people used to be poor as well.[[/note]]

----
!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Tu quoque]]''' ("You, too!"):
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. The fact that such a person is a {{hypocrite}} if he criticizes others for bearing the same flaw he does in his personal life is actually not related to actual objective facts about said flaw or his line of reasoning in condemning that flaw.

-->'''Bob:''' "Smoking and alcoholism are well-known as risks for cancer."
-->'''Alice:''' "But you yourself smoke and drink a lot! You're wrong!"

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 TheAggressiveDrugDealer, while ''you'' made the stupid decision to do drugs yourself.").

-->'''Bob:''' "This bill will be expensive and will not work, therefore you should vote against it."
-->'''Alice:''' "But you supported the bill last month!"

--> When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

--> '''Healy:''' You're a fucking cheat.
--> '''Atherton:''' When in Rome, dear boy...

* When fanfic writer pstibbons was called out for writing a fanfic whose only purpose was to have Hermione torture and humiliate [[RonTheDeathEater Ron]], he cited an earlier work of his where Ron is brutally murdered by Harry, claiming that since people didn't raise a fuss back then, they are clearly sexist. [[note]]Several people did, in fact, complain about Ron's treatment in that fic as well, but since Ron's death at Harry's hand was merely referenced in a single off-hand sentence, compared to an entire fic devoted to it, it didn't draw nearly as much attention.[[/note]]
* UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins in ''The God Delusion'' illustrated a striking example used by a member of the Cult of John Frum, a real-world CargoCult. The cults have numerous forms, such as those that proclaim Frum is the King of America and that he will come in an apocalyptic cataclysm with deliverance and tons of material goods. A researcher asked a believer, "Isn't nineteen years a long time to wait for John Frum?" The believer replied, "If the white man can wait two thousand years for Jesus Christ..."

!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* DoubleThink. At first, ignoring the speaker's hypocrisy seems to mean accepting any contradictory actions he performs. However, accepting Tu Quoque as a fallacy does not mean accepting all DoubleThink spewed out by hypocrites and abusers of ScrewTheRulesIMakeThem as logically valid. Tu Quoque is when the speaker's hypocrisy is used to discredit any objective real-world facts he says, but Doublethink means accepting all logically fallacious contradictions he says.

----
!! '''Style Over Substance'''
!!! Also called:
* If You Can't Say Something Nice
* Appeal To Brevity
* Too long; Didn't read ([=tl;dr=] or "teal deer")

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.

!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:

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 YouFailLogicForever and HitlerAteSugar.

--> ''[[YourMother Yer mum]] 'ad all a them phalluses!''

* If an individual is supposed to be in a position that ''requires'' them to be objective, such as a judge or a journalist, pointing out a conflict of interest is a valid argument, especially if they haven't properly disclosed their affiliation.

* Pointing out that a person is too emotionally invested in something to be objective.
-->Colonel Mustard: "It couldn't have been Miss Scarlet!"
-->Professor Plum: "You would say that because you love her, but face facts. She had the revolver which has been fired, she hated Boddy, she was seen entering the Ballroom where Boddy was shot, and there are bloody footprints of high heels matching her shoes next to the corpse."

A more valid counterattack would be to use the speaker's hypocrisy to bring up a ''valid'' point about the speaker's credibility in itself, without denying any facts he says; you can use this to attempt to prove that the speaker is a hypocrite or a lying ManipulativeBastard ''without'' committing a fallacy. If the hypocrisy is logically connected to possibility of lying, then it is not AHTQ, but if hypocrisy is used to automatically mean [[CryingWolf discrediting any real-world facts he attempts to say]], then it is AHTQ.

* When it is in response to an explicit or implicit appeal to the authority of the speaker:
-->"I studied law at Harvard, and I can see that this law is clearly unconstitutional."
-->"You studied law at Harvard, but you never got a degree."
** The validity of this counterargument can be summarized thus: "Your credentials aren't as impressive as you say, so you're going to have to prove that rather than tell us to take your word for it."
** 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.

* When an insult is present but is [[http://community.livejournal.com/wrongworddammit/283991.html not used as a component of a logical argument]]. Simply saying "You are an idiot, because your logic is fallacious" is not polite, but unless there's a "therefore" step to a conclusion, it is not a fallacy. On the other hand, "Your logic is fallacious, because you are an idiot" is.

Direct ad-hominism is never uglier than when it's based on crude stereotypes, backed up by a disingenuous EverybodyKnowsThat point of view.

-->'''Bob:''' Evolution is a flawed theory because 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, most of them would've died off before evolving into their current forms.
-->'''Alice:''' [[PopculturalOsmosis But we've all seen the movies!]] Everybody knows you creationists are ignorant bigots!"

(Likewise: "I don't have to listen to a nigger" or "You have no business telling me that, because you're a woman and [[StayInTheKitchen your place is in the home]].")

** ''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.

* This is a favorite technique of men's rights activists who claim that feminists are [[DoesNotLikeMen "misandric"]].
** And its close relatives [[MalcolmXerox "reverse racism"]] and [[HetIsEw "heterophobia"]]. There are probably others for other forms of oppression too.