Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem
The Nikzor Project ^

Posted on 05/19/2011 7:48:20 AM PDT by jda

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

(Excerpt) Read more at nizkor.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: liberals; politics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
The liberal/socialist playbook exposed!

We could call them "Ad Hominem Liberals/Socialists", but that would be redundant.

1 posted on 05/19/2011 7:48:23 AM PDT by jda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jda

2 posted on 05/19/2011 7:54:04 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jda
"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."

I'm glad the author tacitly accepts when there are a few cases in which the character, circumstances or actions of a person do have a bearing on a person's argument. IMHO, this is like a very special purpose tool in the rhetorical toolbox, that has its certain applications. Many on the right seem to have abandoned its use altogether, even on those rare occasions when it would be perfectly appropriate and devestatingly effective.

3 posted on 05/19/2011 8:01:56 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

It is appropriate mainly when the person being attacked is speaking from a position of authority. IOW, he making the argument that we should believe what he says because HE is saying it.

One of the most common uses of this fallacy I see on FR is those who discard any evidence provided from a source they don’t like, such as Wikipedia or Snopes.

I agree that such sources should not be taken as Holy Writ, but they often provide good information when used with care.

If you have proof an argument is invalid, present that proof. That evidence you dislike is provided from an arguably biased source is not adequate reason to completely discard that evidence.


4 posted on 05/19/2011 8:15:35 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

It is not an Ad Hominem attack to criticize a leader’s indecisive nature or arrogance. However, to argue, “What can you expect of the Amish?”, has little meaning and flies in the face of reality. If the leader exhibits racism like O, that is fair game and he must be taken to task for his bigotry.


5 posted on 05/19/2011 8:21:25 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"That evidence you dislike is provided from an arguably biased source is not adequate reason to completely discard that evidence."

Indeed. I enjoy the people who harbor nothing but scorn and contempt for the MSM...

...until they publish an article supportive of their values, arguments or beliefs.

6 posted on 05/19/2011 8:23:06 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It is appropriate mainly when the person being attacked is speaking from a position of authority. IOW, he making the argument that we should believe what he says because HE is saying it.

That's a separate fallacy called "appeal to authority".

One of the most common uses of this fallacy I see on FR is those who discard any evidence provided from a source they don’t like, such as Wikipedia or Snopes.

This one is "appeal to motive", slightly more specific than "ad hominem". Appeal to motive, while a fallacy, can still be useful because it notes that the source can be considered suspect, therefore data from that source should be treated with caution unless/until it is independently verified.

7 posted on 05/19/2011 8:24:30 AM PDT by kevkrom (Palin's detractors now resort to "nobody believes she can win because nobody believes she can win")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It is appropriate mainly when the person being attacked is speaking from a position of authority. IOW, he making the argument that we should believe what he says because HE is saying it.

"Appeals to authority" is a logical fallacy of it's own, and pointing out that fallacy in an argument is is not ad hominem, since it is directed at the argument itself, rather than the person.

8 posted on 05/19/2011 8:28:17 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“Poisoning the Well” (Person “A” lies, therefore you can’t ever believe anything he says) is another logical fallacy popular with liberals, along with the Argument from Authority and the Appeal to Ridicule.


9 posted on 05/19/2011 8:34:44 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jda

Glad you discovered and publicized that site. I’ve been using it for a long time now and find it very useful in understanding how to recognize and defeat illogical arguments.


10 posted on 05/19/2011 8:37:43 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“One of the most common uses of this fallacy I see on FR is those who discard any evidence provided from a source they don’t like, such as Wikipedia or Snopes.”

Bingo! This is one of my pet peeves about posters here and on many other blogs.


11 posted on 05/19/2011 8:38:02 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jda

Thanks for posting this - I’m glad to know about this site. How did you come across it?


12 posted on 05/19/2011 8:42:31 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jda

13 posted on 05/19/2011 8:43:43 AM PDT by matt1234 (Dreams from My Father II: Alien Sex Files)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jda
Why should we trust anything you say? You've only been here since 2005, have no capitals in your screen name!

:)

14 posted on 05/19/2011 8:46:30 AM PDT by Mr.Unique (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
One of the most common uses of this fallacy I see on FR is those who discard any evidence provided from a source they don’t like, such as Wikipedia or Snopes.

Take "evidence" from either with a grain of salt. That's just good judgment.

15 posted on 05/19/2011 8:47:51 AM PDT by Mr.Unique (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Thus the expression, “Consider the source.”


16 posted on 05/19/2011 8:51:55 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (America is in dire distress and nobody is lifting a finger except to strike the keyboard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jda

It’s not just the left. Ad hominems are the domain of anyone with a poorly thought out or indefensible position that relies on faith, not facts.

Try disagreeing with a Birther, for instance. If you don’t sip the kool aid, they’ll immediately call you an Obama plant or a troll. They’ll have a few facts handy, but their appetite for more drops off fast if it contradicts what they want to hear.

It’s no different than ‘Lower taxes for the rich are racist’ argument I’ve heard from a liberal co-worker. There’s no intelligent way to argue this; either you believe it or you don’t. If you try to argue it, then your motives as a human being become suspect, and the Believer has no need to treat you or your words with respect.

It’s faith masquerading as intellectual laziness. That’s why they attack right away on a personal level. They know perfectly well that thinking the issue further through is not helpful to maintaining the logical integrity of their beliefs, and in fact leads to heresy.


17 posted on 05/19/2011 8:52:23 AM PDT by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jda
Only a complete idiot would post this.
18 posted on 05/19/2011 8:52:58 AM PDT by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
Only a complete idiot would post this.

Only a complete idiot would reply.

Wait...

19 posted on 05/19/2011 8:57:12 AM PDT by TankerKC (I feel 271 degrees out of sync today, which isn't half bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique
Ahh, you must be either a liberal-in-training or one who hasn't fully recovered!

You've only been here since 2005 . . .

I was educated in public schools so I didn't have a computer until 2004 for fear of Y2K.

. . . have no capitals in your screen name!

I was educated in public schools and have very low self-esteem.

20 posted on 05/19/2011 9:00:50 AM PDT by jda ("Righteousness exalts a nation . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson