clear spot

Ad Hominem Fallacy ↘

below I pasted a segment of a posting by anarchistreview. good to reference:

 

Ad homenim (meaning “to the man”), I believe is accurately defined by Wiki is: “an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.” A simple example is to look at electoral campaigns. A person may be discredited based on something they did in the past or currently are doing. For instance, Obama’s campaign was attacked due to his affiliation with a certain church. This is a personal attack not relevant to the issues he was discussing on his campaign and is therefore a fallacy.

No actions or characteristics of a person can discredit any argument that they may have. This type of fallacy is closely tied to the genetic fallacy that no claim can be automatically logical or illogical simply based on its source.

Tu Quoque: There are a few different forms of ad hominem to be aware of as well. But I would like to take this time to address the most commonly used one on Tumblr: tu quoque, meaning, “You also.”

A very basic example of this is to look at two smokers. Smoker A tells Smoker B that he should quit smoking because it is bad for him. Smoker B then rebuts, “Well maybe you should take your own advice! You’re a smoker yourself!” Smoker B’s rebuttal is an example of the tu quoque strain of ad hominem fallacy because the fact that Smoker A is also a smoker, it does not disprove or weaken Smoker A’s argument that B should quit because of the unhealthy nature of smoking.

This type of fallacy is used so commonly on Tumblr arguments and rebuttals. This is particularly the case when anarchists and other radicals make the claim of apathy among the masses. Radicals will talk often about how people are stuck to their screens and get sucked into the system we reject so much, yet people will turn around and say, “Well look at you! You’re on Tumblr, you’re on Facebook, you use G+! You are just as apathetic.” Claims like this, claiming radical’s claims are hypocritical, do not make them any less true (though I will still refute even their hypocrisy because we are conscious of the tools we are using and we are using them to educate).

Association: Just another strain of ad hominem to be aware of is the guilt by association fallacy. Claiming that any claim a person makes is untrue or illogical simply because the same claim or a similar claim is also made by an undesirable group. This does not necessarily mean that the person identifies with said group personally (in fact there is a name for that as well that I will explain in a minute), but only that they make the same claim.

Circumstantial: This strain of ad hominem calls a claim false because of the predisposition to make such a claim. Person A makes a claim and the rebuttal being, “You would say that! You’re a republican!” Similar to the association fallacy, only this one claims a persons argument is false before they even make it simply because of their potential ideological label. This ties very close to the genetic fallacy that a claim is automatically invalid because of its source.