Replies

As I wait I am pointing out the hypocrisies in some of the posts.

Careful - someone will come along and accuse you of ad hominem argumentation.

I did not write arguments, I wrote posts. Hypocrisy can be pointed out. I was not in a debate at the time. However that does not alleviate your inability to comprehend

Arguments Ad Hominem B applies.

This fallacy is commonly called "an attack on the person." It is a direct attack against an individual, such as attacking a person's beliefs or assertions by attacking the person himself in one way or another. It appears in one of three forms.

A. Abusive

The abusive form uses epithets or factual but irrelevant data against an opponent in hopes of discrediting any statements an opponent may make. Those committing this fallacy hope to turn attention away from the facts of the argument to the person participating in the argument. It is a personal attack on the individual making the argument, not on the argument itself. This is very common in political debates, where the participants find it easier and advantageous to discuss personalities and engage in mudslinging, rather than discuss the issues in the debate.

Example: "Although Mr. Smith, the defendant's chief witness, claims that he did not see the defendant selling heroin to Mr. Jones, there is no reason to accept Mr. Smith's statement. After all, we know that Mr. Smith is a pot-smoking communist-mongering hippie." (Mr. Smith's character in this situation has nothing to do with his testimony as such.)
Example: "Senator Doe proposes to introduce a plan to permit Bible reading in the public schools. We all know, however that he is simply a bigoted, religious fanatic who is trying to destroy our public schools." (The fact that Senator Doe may be a religious fanatic has nothing to do with the debate over permitting Bible reading in the public schools. This proposed policy has to rise or fall on other concerns and evidence.)

B. Circumstantial

The circumstantial form cites the opponent's personal circumstances as sufficient reason for dismissing a statement the opponent has made. Or it may point out a contrast between the opponent's lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that the opponent's conclusions can be dismissed because the opponent is himself hypocritical.

Example: "Of course, the workers at the factory favor unionization. They are the ones who will get a pay raise without having to pay for it." (What does this have to do with anything?)
Example: "Mr. Jones, how can you favor gun legislation when you own a pistol?" (Does this mean you can't vote to preserve the sanctity of marriage if you've been divorced?)
Example: "You should not listen to his arguments against legislation prohibiting the sale of cigarettes. He owns stock in two cigarette companies." (So what? The two circumstances are unrelated to one another.)

C. Arguments Tu Quoque

The tu quoque fallacy occurs when a person attempts to escape criticism of his position by attacking the position of his opponent, rather than by directly answering the charges against him.

Example: Reporter -- "The CIA under your direction engaged in illegal domestic surveillance, a clear-cut violation of the CIA's charter." CIA Official -- "The CIA under the past three administrations has been required to pursue such action. To believe that such activity is not necessary and has not taken place before is naive. It is people like you who would like to see our country infiltrated with foreign spies." (The charges here are not answered by the CIA official. He attempts a diversion by attacking the reporter's position.)
Example: "Far too much fuss has been made over our Central Intelligence Agency's espionage abroad. Other countries are just as deeply engaged in spying as we are." (So what? Do two wrongs make a right? Again this is a diversionary tactic.