Ad Hominem Fallacy: Definition & Examples

  • Thread starter Thread starter zoobyshoe
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the distinction between insults and ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem is defined as an attempt to discredit someone based on irrelevant personal characteristics, while mere insults do not qualify as such. Examples of ad hominem attacks include statements that imply a person's personal issues undermine their arguments, like calling someone's political views meaningless because they are an alcoholic. In contrast, straightforward insults, such as calling someone a "moron," do not attempt to engage with the argument itself and are simply abusive remarks.Participants emphasize that many people misinterpret insults as ad hominem attacks, which can lead to confusion in discussions. The conversation also touches on the nature of logical fallacies, noting that while ad hominem attacks can be seen as a type of non sequitur, they specifically involve a personal attack that is irrelevant to the argument being made. The discussion concludes with the idea that understanding these distinctions is crucial for maintaining clarity in debates and discussions.
  • #51
LogicalFallacy.gif
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
zoobyshoe said:
LogicalFallacy.gif
Nice ZZ :biggrin:
 
  • #53
Ad-hominem is not the same thing as non-sequitir, although an ad-hominem can be a part of the non-sequitir.

Ad-hominem is essentially the same as a red herring, except it's an attack on character that is irrelevant.

As the OP said, an insult in itself is not an ad-hominem, it is only an ad-hominem when it's part of an argument, and suddenly and irrelevantly the argument references or attacks one's character.

Ad-hominem can also take the form of "poisoning the well" where you often seen in courtroom dramas a prosecutor during his argument will randomly take the jury to remember that the accused is also "an alcoholic and cheats on his wife, therefore he is a liar" which often has no bearing on the case at hand.

Merely calling someone an idiot isn't an ad-hominem, it's a logical fallacy that renders your argument void because of the illegitimacy of the link between premise and conclusion.
 
  • #54
hmmm... How would you describe the following exchange:

whenphysicistsfight.jpg
 
  • #55
It's hard to say without the larger context, but formally it would be the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi; red herring, specifically an ad-hominem yes.

Since it looks like banter, it's hard to say.

It could also be classed as poisoning the well depending on the setting. If an Atheist were addressing a group of believers and explaining something, and someone plays the atheist card then it's just distracting from the issue at hand and hoping to divert attention by trying evoke negative feelings towards Atheists or whatever.

It happens all the time, and not solely for Atheists either, towards Christians, towards Muslims, towards gay people, wherever there is a majority vs minority issue.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top