Ad Hominem

Dela Cruz Devanadera

Ad Hominem
against the man or against the person The fallacy of personal attack logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

 the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments

 Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Sub-fallacies
Abusive
An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the oppositionsuch as appearanceis offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.

 Circumstantial
A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position.
This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance.

Examples
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."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "This does not logically follow."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. This does not logically follow."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "You evidently know nothing about logic."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "You know nothing about logic."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "This does not logically follow. And you're an asshole."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "You're an asshole."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. And you're an asshole."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Well, you're a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."

Examples
A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn't a murderer, and so can't be a criminal." B: "Well, you're a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument."

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Wrong! If a weasel isn't a rodent, then it must be an insectivore! What an asshole!"

Examples
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."

Examples
A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

Examples
A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, and a lizard isn't a mammal, so it can't be a rodent." B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

Examples
A: "B is a convicted criminal and his arguments are not to be trusted." B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

Examples
A: "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted." B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

LAST EXAMPLE
A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "That does not logically follow." A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?" B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q." A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal." B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks." A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

References
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html