History Main / ArgumentumAdLapidem

!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem Agumentum Ad Lapidem]]'''
!!! Which means:
* Appeal to the Stone

The act of dismissing a statement as absurd without providing any proof that it's absurd.

Similar to BeggingTheQuestion.

Like AppealToRidicule, only it doesn't even try to make an argument.

Compare FallacyFallacy, which is when an argument is dismissed just because it uses a fallacy.

!!Examples:

[[AC:ComicBooks]]
* ''ComicBook/WonderWoman1987'': When a group of angry parents come in and start tearing down the posters and decorations of a High School Wonder Woman fan club saying that it promotes converting to paganism, abortion and becoming lesbians the adults brush off the girl's well argued protests by treating them like little kids who have been brainwashed and are crazy instead of addressing what is being said.

[[AC:Film]]

* In ''Film/ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their checkbooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for Senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming as their products also kill, which Finistirre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.

[[AC:VideoGame]]
* ''VideoGame/DragonAgeInquisition'': Sera often refutes anything the Inquisitor says that she doesn't like or agree with as "That's stupid" or "You're stupid," without explaining ''why'' it's stupid.

[[AC:RealLife]]

* The origin of the fallacy is Creator/{{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which, naturally, failed to show that this was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.
* This is a favorite tactic of politicians, pundits and op-ed writers in general on both sides; by presenting perfectly reasonable arguments and reacting to them as if someone had just told them Godzilla was about to attack -- instead of addressing the argument itself -- they can make their audience ''think'' the argument being presented is nonsensical (though [[ConfirmationBias it's not likely they needed much help in that regard]]).
* Creationists often use an argument along the lines of "I can't believe life just evolved by itself, so it must not have". Never mind that one could use that same "reasoning" to justify disbelieving ''anything'', E.G "I can't believe any flavor of ice cream other than vanilla exists, so there must only be vanilla ice cream."
----

* This is a favorite tactic of right-wing pundits in general; by presenting perfectly reasonable arguments and reacting to them as if someone had just told them Godzilla was about to attack -- instead of addressing the argument itself -- they can make their audience ''think'' the argument being presented is nonsensical (though it's not likely they needed much help in that regard).

The act of dismissing a statement as absurd without providing any proof that is absurd.

* In ''Film/ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for Senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finistirre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.

** A similar story is told about [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes Zeno's paradoxes]]. Namely, that the Cynic Diogenes, upon having heard Zeno's arguments, said nothing, but merely stood up and walked.

!!! Also Called

:: The Act of dismissing a statement as absurd without providing any proof that is absurd.

Like AppealToRidicule only it doesn't even try to make an argument.

* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which, naturally, failed to show that this was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.

* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which naturally failed to show that this was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.

* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which naturally failed to show that the stone was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.

* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for Senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finistirre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.

* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finistirre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.

* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finnistre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.

* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finnistre counters with "I...just...psh...no."

Examples:
* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finnistre counters with "I...just...psh...no."

* In ThankYouForSmoking (the movie), Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finnistre counters with "I...just...psh...no."

Like AppealToRidicule only it doesn't even try to make an argument.

:: The Act of dismissing a statement as absurd without providing any proof that is absurd.

!!''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem AgumentumAdLapidem]]''

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem AgumentumAdLapidem]]

''From TheOtherWiki'''

Ad lapidem (Latin: "to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. The form of argument employed by such dismissals is the argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone.

Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. AdHominem arguments, which dispute the merits of a claim's advocate rather than the merits of the claim itself, are fallacious for the same reason. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.

The name of this fallacy is attributed to Dr. Samuel Johnson, who refuted Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds), by kicking a large stone and asserting, "I refute it thus." This action, which fails to prove the existence of the stone outside of the ideas formed by perception, has been seen as merely dismissing Berkeley's argument.