Ad hominem fallacy quotes

The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy associated with trying to undermine the opponent's arguments by personal attacks, through attacking their character or skill level, etc. The ad hominem attack uses an accepted fact about a person to undermine their credibility despite the lack of causal connection between the two parts of the argument.

Bill claims that this was an accident, but we know Bill to be a liar, so we can't take his word for it. Even though Bill may be a liar, his character does not automatically make anything he says untrue.

Now THAT’S An Ad Hominem Attack

Susan anita harmonize mp3 download an avid hunter, therefor she cannot possibly support gun control. Being a hunter is used as a negative characteristic to make a conclusion which could very well be untrue.

Susan could support a variety of gun control elgislation. Ad Hominem The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy associated with trying to undermine the opponent's arguments by personal attacks, through attacking their character or skill level, etc.

ad hominem fallacy quotes

Example of Ad Hominem Bill claims that this was an accident, but we know Bill to be a liar, so we can't take his word for it.This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. Learn more Got it! An ad hominem argument or argumentum ad hominem in Latin is used to counter another argument. However, it's based on feelings of prejudice often irrelevant to the argumentrather than facts, reason and logic.

An ad hominem argument is often a personal attack on someone's character or motive, rather than an attempt to address the actual issue at hand. This type of fallacy is often witnessed in debates in courtrooms and politics. Often, the attack is based on a person's social, political, or religious views. Either way, ad hominem attacks undermine the case and are to be avoided at all costs.

You'll see why as we explore ad hominem examples below. Sometimes, people utilize ad hominem arguments because they want to appeal to people's emotions. Raise your hand if you've ever jumped to a conclusion based on emotion, rather than reason. But, that's precisely why these kinds of arguments are often made of straw rather than of steel. As soon as you spot someone coming after you with an ad hominem argument, you can counter their attack in two moves.

Point out the irrelevance of the emotional testimony they've just introduced to the argument. Point out their personal attack on you and highlight how it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. In fact, you can go so far as to ask them how - precisely - their personal attack is relevant to the argument at hand. Once you've exposed their weakness, move on. Take the high road. You might say something to the effect of, "I understand you think I'm X,Y, and Z, but that has nothing to do with what we are actually discussing here.

So, I'm not going to entertain it any longer. Make sure you never find yourself on the wrong side of an ad hominem argument with a quick review of the concept in this video.Ad hominem Latin for "to the person"short for argumentum ad hominemis a term is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim aB asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument a is wrong". The valid types of ad hominem arguments are generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage and typically refer to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them while not assenting to the validity of those beliefs and arguments. The various types of ad hominem arguments have been known in the West since at least the ancient Greeks.

Aristotlein his work Sophistical Refutationsdetailed the fallaciousness of putting the questioner but not the argument under scrutiny.

Many examples of ancient non-fallacious ad hominem arguments are preserved in the works of the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus.

In these arguments, the concepts and assumptions of the opponents are used as part of a dialectical strategy against the opponents to demonstrate the unsoundness of their own arguments and assumptions. In this way, the arguments are to the person ad hominembut without attacking the properties of the individuals making the arguments. In the midth century, the modern understanding of the term ad hominem started to take shape, with the broad definition given by English logician Richard Whately.

According to Whately, ad hominem arguments were " addressed to the peculiar circumstances, character, avowed opinions, or past conduct of the individual. Except within specialized philosophical usages, the modern usage of the term ad hominem signifies a straight attack at the character and ethos of a person, in an attempt to refute its argument.

The Latin phase argumentum ad hominem stands for "argument against the person". The terms ad mulierem and ad feminam have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female. Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized among informal fallaciesmore precisely as a genetic fallacya subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance. Ad hominem fallacies can be separated in various different types, among others are tu quoquecircumstantial, guilt by association, and abusive ad hominem.

All of them are similar to the general scheme of ad hominem argument, that is instead of dealing with the essence of someones argument or trying to refute it, the interlocutor is attacking the character of the proponent of the argument and concluding that it is a sufficient reason to drop the initial argument. Ad hominem tu quoque literally: "You also" is a response to a personal attack or ad hominem argument that itself is a personal attack.

Here is an example given by philosophy professor George Wrisley to illustrate the above: A businessman and politician is giving a lecture at a University about how good his company is and how nicely the system works. A student asks him "Is it true that you and your company are selling weapons to third world rulers who use those arms against their own people? You are not a white dove either".

ad hominem fallacy quotes

The ad hominem accusation of the student is relevant to the narrative the businessman tries to project thus not fallacious. On the other hand, the attack on the student that is the student being inconsistent is irrelevant to the opening narrative. So the businessman's tu quoque response is fallacious. Philosopher Christopher Tindale approaches somewhat different the tu quoque fallacy. According to Tindale, a tu quoque fallacy appears when a response to an argument is made on the history of the arguer.

This argument is also invalid because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite or even changed his mind, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. A common example, given by Tindale, is when a doctor advises a patient to lose weight, but the patient argues that there is no need for him to go on a diet because the doctor is also overweight.

Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances ie job, wealth, property, relations such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. As with other types of ad hominem attack, circumstantial attack could be fallacious or not.David Plouffe at least has done something useful, if not ethical.

We get a lot of accusations here—aimed at me and also between warring commenters—of using ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem attacks are indeed unethical, not because of the negative descriptions of the target they involve, which may well be accurate and fair, but because they are a dishonest and unfair debate tactic. The motive behind a true ad hominem attack is to avoid dealing with the substance of what an adversary claims, argues or asserts by attacking the person, character or background of the adversary.

When successful, ad hominem attacks deflect the real debate and turn it into a debate about something else, focusing on the original speaker, now feeling the need to defend his honor rather than his position. Insulting someone while fairly rebutting his argument may be uncivil, which is unethical too, but it is a lesser ethics offense: it is not intended to deceive.

It is not ad hominem.

ad hominem fallacy quotes

It is also not an ad hominem attack. I plead guilty to this debatable ethical breach on occasion. I had written back that the misspelling was obviously inadvertent, and that using an innocent mistake to infer a malicious intent to harm was the act of a jerk—which it is. For an example of a pure, unquestionable, lazy, and indefensible ad hominem attack, we are fortunate to have this recent tweet from David Plouffe, former official advisor to President Obama, paid consultant to the White House, current unofficial advisor, and as recently as this Sunday, anointed mouthpiece of same.

And loose ethically today. Pure ad hominem. For such a White House insider to stoop to an ad hominem attack on a prominent critic is one more sign that this White House is a desperate, b without scruples and c probably hiding something really bad.

Incidentally, Issa is correct: Jay Carney is a paid liar. All Presidential press secretaries are, though few have lied more frequently or more obviously than Carney. And so is David Plouffe. Facts: Huffington Post.

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. Jack, I am shocked—shocked! But, a reckless driving charge—a scarce 7 years old and based on…? What is the matter with people like you?

Get your act together, sir.

How Trump used 7 logical fallacies in 49 minutes

Was this talking point developed through ordered research or is there an enemies list? Also awful. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account.Most public figures give speeches for the purpose of endorsing a particular candidate, so it was interesting to see the opposite: someone coming out specifically to oppose a particular candidate. And this, too, makes his speech unique, in that it was largely free of what has become the hallmark of this campaign season: ad hominem attacks.

The ad hominem is typically described as an attack against the person, or more specifically their character, personality, or physical appearance. Most people consider this a rhetorical fallacy: a weak argument based upon immateriality. And yet, Mr. Trump is using them.

So far, Trump seems to have managed to use ad hominem attacks against each of his opponents—both within and beyond his party—at least once and sometime more. He made sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton. And yet, to date Trump has won 14 of 23 primariesand looks to carry a few more before the month is out. In fact, this tactic may be pushing voters to reach the conclusions that Trump so eagerly and gleefully suggests. If you are anything like me, you may be shaking your head and thinking, what is our country coming to?

But Christopher M. And without compelling evidence, or even a clear, viable picture of the basic issues, voters are victim to the pressures and intellectual limitations of their personal situations. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account.

You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.Sign in with Facebook Sign in options. Join Goodreads. Quotes tagged as "ad-hominem" Showing of This vulgar method, which is now the norm and the standard in much non-Left journalism as well, is designed to have the effect of making any noisy moron into a master analyst.

For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the 'Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. What was once an issue of physical difference is now one of intellectual difference. Men have yet to master disagreeing without flashing all their frustrations that come with it; the conservative will throw half-truths while the liberal will throw insults.

Combine these and what do you get? A dishonest mockery of a country. I wanted to press him harder so I veered close enough to the ad hominem to point out that his life—the life of the mind, the life of the book collector and music lover and indeed of the gallery-goer, appreciator of the feminine and occasional boulevardier —would become simply unlivable and unthinkable in an Islamic republic.

Again, he could accede politely to my point but carry on somehow as if nothing had been conceded. I came slowly to realize that with Edward, too, I was keeping two sets of books. We agreed on things like the first Palestinian intifadahanother event that took the Western press completely off guard, and we collaborated on a book of essays that asserted and defended Palestinian rights.

This was in the now hard-to-remember time when all official recognition was withheld from the PLO. Together we debated Professor Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier at a once-celebrated conference of the Middle East Studies Association in Cambridge intossing and goring them somewhat in a duel over academic 'objectivity' in the wider discipline.

But even then I was indistinctly aware that Edward didn't feel himself quite at liberty to say certain things, while at the same time feeling rather too much obliged to say certain other things. A low point was an almost uncritical profile of Yasser Arafat that he contributed to Interview magazine in the late s.

What is an Ad Hominem Attack? - Argument Clinic - WIRED

And is usually used to distract the focus of a discussion - to move it from an indefensible point and to attack the opponent. I don't know anymore than you know they're not. But, I'm talking about boundaries and privacy here. As a therapist working with survivors, I have been harassed by people who claim to be affiliated with the false memory movement.

Parents and other family members have called or written me insisting on talking with me about my patients' cases, despite my clearly indicating I can't because of professional confidentiality.

I have had other parents and family members investigate me -- look into my professional background -- hoping to find something to discredit me to the patients I was seeing at the time because they disputed their memories. This isn't the kind of sober, scientific discourse you all claim you want.

ad hominem fallacy quotes

Barrages of ad hominem attacks all too often await both the scientists working in climate research and journalists who communicate the research findings. Walker, Skewed: psychiatric hegemony and manufacture of mental illness in multiple chemical sensitivity, Gulf War syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome.

I'd only point out, though, that if true these accusations must also have been true when I was still on the correct side, and that such shocking deformities didn't seem to count for so much then. Arguing with the Stalinist mentality for more than three decades now, and doing a bit of soapboxing and street-corner speaking on and off, has meant that it takes quite a lot to hurt my tender feelings, or bruise my milk-white skin.Sign in with Facebook Sign in options.

Join Goodreads. Quotes tagged as "fallacy" Showing of At the time I could only regard him with tolerant condescension. I was sorry of the man who, it seemed to me, was forced to hover about the edges of science. He was compelled to shiver endlessly in the outskirts, getting only feeble warmth from the distant sun of science- in-progress; while I, just beginning my research, was bathed in the heady liquid heat up at the very center of the glow.

In a lifetime of being wrong at many a point, I was never more wrong. It was I, not he, who was wandering in the periphery. It was he, not I, who lived in the blaze. I had fallen victim to the fallacy of the 'growing edge;' the belief that only the very frontier of scientific advance counted; that everything that had been left behind by that advance was faded and dead. But is that true? Because a tree in spring buds and comes greenly into leaf, are those leaves therefore the tree?

The Ad Hominem Fallacy (3 Flavors) and Ridicule in the Bible

If the newborn twigs and their leaves were all that existed, they would form a vague halo of green suspended in mid-air, but surely that is not the tree. The leaves, by themselves, are no more than trivial fluttering decoration.

It is the trunk and limbs that give the tree its grandeur and the leaves themselves their meaning. There is not a discovery in science, however revolutionary, however sparkling with insight, that does not arise out of what went before. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. There are also those who inadvertently grant power to another man's words by continuously trying to spite him.

If a man gets to the point where he can simply say, 'The sky is blue,' and people indignantly rush up trying to refute him saying, 'No, the sky is light blue,' then, whether they realize it or not, he has become an authority figure even to such adversaries. This vulgar method, which is now the norm and the standard in much non-Left journalism as well, is designed to have the effect of making any noisy moron into a master analyst.

Psychology is the study of why someone would try to do this. Information that is consistent with our pre-existing beliefs is often accepted at face value, whereas evidence that contradicts them is critically scrutinized and discounted. When the idea of intelligence, rather than intelligence itself, becomes a staple, there is no wisdom in it.

Because those values explain who am I. Silence is not respect; it is not condemning brutality and cruelty, and neglecting your own existence as human being. I will be killed and so many others because of standing against the fallacy and misleading notion of religions. Asked to assess the similarity of two entities, people pay more attention to the ways in which they are similar than to the ways in which they differ.

Asked to assess dissimilarity, they become more concerned with differences than with similarities. In other words, when testing a hypothesis of similarity, people look for evidence of similarity rather than dissimilarity, and when testing a hypothesis of dissimilarity, they do the opposite. By and large, however, the dominant model of avant-garde art during the modern period assumes that shared or collective values and systems of meaning are necessarily repressive and incapable of generating new insight or grounding creative praxis.

It is! The real problems of the world do not come from the insane but, the sane! Namely, that it is a meaningless place devoid of deity. However I'm unwilling simply to repeat the old arguments of the past when, in fact, God is a moving target and is taking all sorts of new shapes and forms. The arguments used against the long bow are not particularly useful when debating nuclear weapons, and the simple arguments against the old model gods are not sufficient when dealing with the likes of Davies et al.

For example, the notion that God didn't exist, doesn't exist but may come into existence through the spread of consciousness throughout the universe is too clever to be pooh-poohed along Bertrand Russell lines.