A Lesson For All: The Ad Hominem Fallacy

Okay, this is probably the most frustrating thing to happen in an argument. Some idiot gets mad and starts making personal attacks against another person in an attempt to advance their own argument. Usually, the fallacy is committed by saying something about the person's beliefs, characteristics, personal integrity, or credibility. Only a moron would do this. The argument stands alone from the person. It is completely and 100% irrelevant to the argument being made.

If a person has been divorced 29 times, the advice he gives on marriage is equally as valid as someone with a perfect marriage. The advice alone is the only relevant information.

So through this, I have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. Sure I called some people morons and idiots, but NOT to advance my argument. It is only the ad hominem fallacy when it is used in an attempt to advance your own argument or refute the other's.

Here's an example:

What you just said is obviously wrong because you are a moron.    This is an ad hominem.

You are a moron.    This is not. 

There, now go make arguments you unintelligent wastes of space.

I took a shit today and pissed my paints you are a moron... crap. I'll get it right next time.

I've got another great example.

Here's something all of you morons need to read.

Roflwaffles.

I still haven't used it yet though!

I called them morons, but it had nothing to do with an argument :D  Just pointing out facts.

It's okay.

But those people are irrelevant to the advise given. The man who has gotten 29 divorces very well could give better advice. The advice is the ONLY thing that can be considered for the argument. Anything otherwise is a logical fallacy of the worst kind.

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Okay, this is probably the most frustrating thing to happen in an argument. Some idiot gets mad and starts making personal attacks against another person in an attempt to advance their own argument. Usually, the fallacy is committed by saying something about the person's beliefs, characteristics, personal integrity, or credibility. Only a moron would do this. The argument stands alone from the person. It is completely and 100% irrelevant to the argument being made.

If a person has been divorced 29 times, the advice he gives on marriage is equally as valid as someone with a perfect marriage. The advice alone is the only relevant information.

So through this, I have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. Sure I called some people morons and idiots, but NOT to advance my argument. It is only the ad hominem fallacy when it is used in an attempt to advance your own argument or refute the other's.

Here's an example:

What you just said is obviously wrong because you are a moron.    This is an ad hominem.

You are a moron.    This is not. 

There, now go make arguments you unintelligent wastes of space.

"

Burton, i apoligize for the other thread. I didn't think that it would become such a focal point. I wasn't thinking, and I apoligize.

However, your example is flawed. While that person who has been divorced 29 times has a right to an opinion, I would say that person is far from an expert in said field, especially when compared to a man that has been happily married on his first or second try for 50 years.

"

"AgentJ said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Okay, this is probably the most frustrating thing to happen in an argument. Some idiot gets mad and starts making personal attacks against another person in an attempt to advance their own argument. Usually, the fallacy is committed by saying something about the person's beliefs, characteristics, personal integrity, or credibility. Only a moron would do this. The argument stands alone from the person. It is completely and 100% irrelevant to the argument being made.

If a person has been divorced 29 times, the advice he gives on marriage is equally as valid as someone with a perfect marriage. The advice alone is the only relevant information.

So through this, I have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. Sure I called some people morons and idiots, but NOT to advance my argument. It is only the ad hominem fallacy when it is used in an attempt to advance your own argument or refute the other's.

Here's an example:

What you just said is obviously wrong because you are a moron.    This is an ad hominem.

You are a moron.    This is not. 

There, now go make arguments you unintelligent wastes of space.

"

Burton, i apoligize for the other thread. I didn't think that it would become such a focal point. I wasn't thinking, and I apoligize.

However, your example is flawed. While that person who has been divorced 29 times has a right to an opinion, I would say that person is far from an expert in said field, especially when compared to a man that has been happily married on his first or second try for 50 years.

"

I will preface this statement by the fact that I just learned what an ad hominem argument is in this thread.Yet, this second part still seems like an ad hominem argument. You're justifying discrediting or ignoring his advice not based on the advice but based on a judgment of his character."

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"It's okay. But those people are irrelevant to the advise given. The man who has gotten 29 divorces very well could give better advice. The advice is the ONLY thing that can be considered for the argument. Anything otherwise is a logical fallacy of the worst kind. "

Dont you think that some people will know better than others though? After all, if a small child tells me that Green Eggs and Ham is the best book ever written, am i supposed to take him just as seriously as a foremost expert in literature who has read every book in existance(hypotheticly) and says that A tale of two cities is the greatest? This is obviously an extreme case, but I'm definately going to trust one over the other."

Oh gosh. You guys totally missed my post. That example is not an ad hominem, it's a genetic fallacy. Morons =P

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"It's okay. But those people are irrelevant to the advise given. The man who has gotten 29 divorces very well could give better advice. The advice is the ONLY thing that can be considered for the argument. Anything otherwise is a logical fallacy of the worst kind. "

Dont you think that some people will know better than others though? After all, if a small child tells me that Green Eggs and Ham is the best book ever written, am i supposed to take him just as seriously as a foremost expert in literature who has read every book in existance(hypotheticly) and says that A tale of two cities is the greatest? This is obviously an extreme case, but I'm definately going to trust one over the other."

Stop, just stop. You are wrong. That is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument directly criticizing the source, not refuting the origin of a claim. If I argue by calling you an idiot, that is ad hominem. If I argue by saying that you aren't a doctor and therefore know nothing about medicine, that is a genetic fallacy.

YOU are a genetic fallacy.

I'm out...time for some left 4 dead.

later

"Stop, just stop. You are wrong. That is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument directly criticizing the source, not refuting the origin of a claim. If I argue by calling you an idiot, that is ad hominem. If I argue by saying that you aren't a doctor and therefore know nothing about medicine, that is a genetic fallacy."

"Okay, this is probably the most frustrating thing to happen in an argument. Some idiot gets mad and starts making personal attacks against another person in an attempt to advance their own argument. Usually, the fallacy is committed by saying something about the person's beliefs, characteristics, personal integrity, or credibility. Only a moron would do this. The argument stands alone from the person. It is completely and 100% irrelevant to the argument being made.

If a person has been divorced 29 times, the advice he gives on marriage is equally as valid as someone with a perfect marriage. The advice alone is the only relevant information.

So through this, I have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. Sure I called some people morons and idiots, but NOT to advance my argument. It is only the ad hominem fallacy when it is used in an attempt to advance your own argument or refute the other's.

Here's an example:

What you just said is obviously wrong because you are a moron.    This is an ad hominem.

You are a moron.    This is not. 

There, now go make arguments you unintelligent wastes of space.

"

I already knew of ad hominem. I also know of a few other stupid things, like Historian's Fallacy.

This is the internet. No one cares.

I see someone read their Critical Thinking textbook today.

The irony here is that Burton has resorted to ad hominem fallacies as an attempt to belittle or downplay someone arguing with him many times during his tenure here as a politically-charged economy expert.

That's stupid. Any personal insult serves to benefit your argument, even if you don't directly say "you're a moron so your argument sucks", just saying "your a moron" in the middle of an argument implies that the reason they are a moron is because of the argument.

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Okay, this is probably the most frustrating thing to happen in an argument. Some idiot gets mad and starts making personal attacks against another person in an attempt to advance their own argument. Usually, the fallacy is committed by saying something about the person's beliefs, characteristics, personal integrity, or credibility. Only a moron would do this. The argument stands alone from the person. It is completely and 100% irrelevant to the argument being made.

If a person has been divorced 29 times, the advice he gives on marriage is equally as valid as someone with a perfect marriage. The advice alone is the only relevant information.

So through this, I have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. Sure I called some people morons and idiots, but NOT to advance my argument. It is only the ad hominem fallacy when it is used in an attempt to advance your own argument or refute the other's.

Here's an example:

What you just said is obviously wrong because you are a moron.    This is an ad hominem.

You are a moron.    This is not. 

There, now go make arguments you unintelligent wastes of space.

"

I would disagree that you did not state ad hominem fallacies. You called people morons and idiots to advance your argument that they were wrong about a topic and you were right. I believe you may be drawing a line where none needs to be drawn on the subject of the ad hominem fallacy. It is an attack literally 'against the man'. Also, assuming that because we are on this forum we will make arguments and not debates, reinforcing your opinion by calling us 'unintelligent wastes of space', negates your previously made point about not having made an ad hominem fallacy. Please, rethink your tactics."

"The irony here is that Burton has resorted to ad hominem fallacies as an attempt to belittle or downplay someone arguing with him many times during his tenure here as a politically-charged economy expert.

Which isn't to say that I haven't, but... full disclosure.

"

"That's stupid. Any personal insult serves to benefit your argument, even if you don't directly say "you're a moron so your argument sucks", just saying "your a moron" in the middle of an argument implies that the reason they are a moron is because of the argument."

No. If you just say that someone is a moron, and leave it at that, you haven't replied to their argument at all. It's not an ad hominem. You just decided to not reply to the argument presented.

If you you call them a moron, and then you precede to make counter arguments against his, that is not the ad hominem fallacy.

If you say that the person is a moron, and then say it makes their argument void, that IS an ad hominem,

Here's an ad hominem:

1) You are a moron.

2) Morons cannot have valid arguments.

3) Your argument is not valid.

Here is an example of something that is not an ad hominem:

Statement: You are a moron

1) Premise A

2) Premise B

3) Conclusion

When your argument is used as a premise or a conclusion in an argument, then it is the ad hominem fallacy. When you just insult someone, it is not. It is separate from your argument.

Here's a better example of an ad hominem:

1) Source A makes claim X

2) There is something objectionable about Source A

3) Therefore claim X is false

"lamegame621 said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Okay, this is probably the most frustrating thing to happen in an argument. Some idiot gets mad and starts making personal attacks against another person in an attempt to advance their own argument. Usually, the fallacy is committed by saying something about the person's beliefs, characteristics, personal integrity, or credibility. Only a moron would do this. The argument stands alone from the person. It is completely and 100% irrelevant to the argument being made.

If a person has been divorced 29 times, the advice he gives on marriage is equally as valid as someone with a perfect marriage. The advice alone is the only relevant information.

So through this, I have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. Sure I called some people morons and idiots, but NOT to advance my argument. It is only the ad hominem fallacy when it is used in an attempt to advance your own argument or refute the other's.

Here's an example:

What you just said is obviously wrong because you are a moron.    This is an ad hominem.

You are a moron.    This is not. 

There, now go make arguments you unintelligent wastes of space.

"

I would disagree that you did not state ad hominem fallacies. You called people morons and idiots to advance your argument that they were wrong about a topic and you were right. I believe you may be drawing a line where none needs to be drawn on the subject of the ad hominem fallacy. It is an attack literally 'against the man'. Also, assuming that because we are on this forum we will make arguments and not debates, reinforcing your opinion by calling us 'unintelligent wastes of space', negates your previously made point about not having made an ad hominem fallacy. Please, rethink your tactics."

Wow. did you even read the post?Let me ask you this, how did I insult someone as a tool of advancing my argument? "

"MattyFTM said:

"That's stupid. Any personal insult serves to benefit your argument, even if you don't directly say "you're a moron so your argument sucks", just saying "your a moron" in the middle of an argument implies that the reason they are a moron is because of the argument."

"

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Jayge said:

"The irony here is that Burton has resorted to ad hominem fallacies as an attempt to belittle or downplay someone arguing with him many times during his tenure here as a politically-charged economy expert.

Which isn't to say that I haven't, but... full disclosure.

"

When have I used it?I insult the stupid fucks on here all the time, but when do I use it as my argument? "

Whether or not you admit it, that is part of your argument. Any measure taken to portray your debate opponent as someone of lesser character (demeaning them with insults due to age, perceived experience level, perceived intelligence level, whatever) during a debate or argument is still a part of your argument; and it's also an ad hominem fallacy. As you admitted, you use it all the time."

No, it's not part of my argument.

Tell me how I use it as my argument. Which premise is it? And which premise follows after it?

What I've said isn't even debatable. Insulting is different than an ad hominem fallacy. This is like you trying to argue against me that 1+1=2. An ad hominem is when it is used as a premise to to advance the argument. That is what it IS. It's not debatable.

Tell me when I have done this:

1) Source A makes claim X

2) There is something objectionable about Source A

3) Therefore claim X is false

You can insult all you want, but as long as you don't use it as a premise, it is not a fallacy. It has nothing to do with "admitting" anything. That's just how it is. Arguments consists of premises and conclusions. So when I'm not using the insult as a premise, it is NOT part of my argument.

The point is, you do not have to explicitly say something to imply it, and even if you are implying it, you are using it as part of your argument.

"
lilburtonboy7489 said:

"lamegame621 said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Okay, this is probably the most frustrating thing to happen in an argument. Some idiot gets mad and starts making personal attacks against another person in an attempt to advance their own argument. Usually, the fallacy is committed by saying something about the person's beliefs, characteristics, personal integrity, or credibility. Only a moron would do this. The argument stands alone from the person. It is completely and 100% irrelevant to the argument being made.

If a person has been divorced 29 times, the advice he gives on marriage is equally as valid as someone with a perfect marriage. The advice alone is the only relevant information.

So through this, I have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. Sure I called some people morons and idiots, but NOT to advance my argument. It is only the ad hominem fallacy when it is used in an attempt to advance your own argument or refute the other's.

Here's an example:

What you just said is obviously wrong because you are a moron.    This is an ad hominem.

You are a moron.    This is not. 

There, now go make arguments you unintelligent wastes of space.

"

I would disagree that you did not state ad hominem fallacies. You called people morons and idiots to advance your argument that they were wrong about a topic and you were right. I believe you may be drawing a line where none needs to be drawn on the subject of the ad hominem fallacy. It is an attack literally 'against the man'. Also, assuming that because we are on this forum we will make arguments and not debates, reinforcing your opinion by calling us 'unintelligent wastes of space', negates your previously made point about not having made an ad hominem fallacy. Please, rethink your tactics."

Wow. did you even read the post?Let me ask you this, how did I insult someone as a tool of advancing my argument? "

I will politely decline from furthering this conversation, as you seem to be a bit angry about this subject. I don't wish to cause you any psychological harm and will withdraw from this current topic of conversation. No hard feelings.

These fine gentlemen may speak on my behalf :

"MattyFTM said:

"That's stupid. Any personal insult serves to benefit your argument, even if you don't directly say "you're a moron so your argument sucks", just saying "your a moron" in the middle of an argument implies that the reason they are a moron is because of the argument."

"

Jayge said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Jayge said:

"The irony here is that Burton has resorted to ad hominem fallacies as an attempt to belittle or downplay someone arguing with him many times during his tenure here as a politically-charged economy expert.

Which isn't to say that I haven't, but... full disclosure.

"

When have I used it?I insult the stupid fucks on here all the time, but when do I use it as my argument? "

Whether or not you admit it, that is part of your argument. Any measure taken to portray your debate opponent as someone of lesser character (demeaning them with insults due to age, perceived experience level, perceived intelligence level, whatever) during a debate or argument is still a part of your argument; and it's also an ad hominem fallacy. As you admitted, you use it all the time."

"

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"No. If you just say that someone is a moron, and leave it at that, you haven't replied to their argument at all. It's not an ad hominem. You just decided to not reply to the argument presented. If you you call them a moron, and then you precede to make counter arguments against his, that is not the ad hominem fallacy.If you say that the person is a moron, and then say it makes their argument void, that IS an ad hominem, Here's an ad hominem:1) You are a moron.2) Morons cannot have valid arguments. 3) Your argument is not valid. Here is an example of something that is not an ad hominem: Statement: You are a moron1) Premise A2) Premise B3) ConclusionWhen your argument is used as a premise or a conclusion in an argument, then it is the ad hominem fallacy. When you just insult someone, it is not. It is separate from your argument. Here's a better example of an ad hominem:1) Source A makes claim X2) There is something objectionable about Source A3) Therefore claim X is false"

The point is, you do not have to explicitly say something to imply it, and even if you are implying it, you are using it as part of your argument."

Note: Trying to preach to the internet, no matter how intelligent the company may seem, is useless.

-

"No. If you just say that someone is a moron, and leave it at that, you haven't replied to their argument at all. It's not an ad hominem. You just decided to not reply to the argument presented.

If you you call them a moron, and then you precede to make counter arguments against his, that is not the ad hominem fallacy.

If you say that the person is a moron, and then say it makes their argument void, that IS an ad hominem,"

-

And in response to this: I think you're an idiot. Look I called you an idiot, but wuh-oh, I didn't actually say it was an attempt to invalidate your argument so it must not be ad hominem. Come on, man, anybody with a working head on their shoulders would see the flaws in your argument, especially in context to the internet. None of us have met any of the people we're interacting with in person and therefore have nothing to base their intelligence off of except the things they say and arguments they make. Just by responding to someone's post with, "you're an idiot," you're saying, fundamentally, the same thing as if you said, "You are an idiot and therefore your argument is moot."

Geez, read a dictionary. ;p

Besides, attacking people on the internet is fun, especially since we're all interacting with each other incognito. Personal responsibility be damned!

"MattyFTM said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"No. If you just say that someone is a moron, and leave it at that, you haven't replied to their argument at all. It's not an ad hominem. You just decided to not reply to the argument presented. If you you call them a moron, and then you precede to make counter arguments against his, that is not the ad hominem fallacy.If you say that the person is a moron, and then say it makes their argument void, that IS an ad hominem, Here's an ad hominem:1) You are a moron.2) Morons cannot have valid arguments. 3) Your argument is not valid. Here is an example of something that is not an ad hominem: Statement: You are a moron1) Premise A2) Premise B3) ConclusionWhen your argument is used as a premise or a conclusion in an argument, then it is the ad hominem fallacy. When you just insult someone, it is not. It is separate from your argument. Here's a better example of an ad hominem:1) Source A makes claim X2) There is something objectionable about Source A3) Therefore claim X is false"

The point is, you do not have to explicitly say something to imply it, and even if you are implying it, you are using it as part of your argument."

It's easy to tell when it is used as a premise. If it is, then it's an ad hominem. If you call someone a retard in the middle of an argument, not using it as a premise, then is it not. So even if you call someone retarded, yes, you are implying that they are, in fact, a retard. But that's not an ad hominem. That does not imply that it is part of your argument, it only implies that you think they are a retard. It does NOT imply that they are wrong because of them being retarded. Saying it does not make it a premise. "

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"No, it's not part of my argument. Tell me how I use it as my argument. Which premise is it? And which premise follows after it?What I've said isn't even debatable. Insulting is different than an ad hominem fallacy. This is like you trying to argue against me that 1+1=2. An ad hominem is when it is used as a premise to to advance the argument. That is what it IS. It's not debatable. Tell me when I have done this:1) Source A makes claim X2) There is something objectionable about Source A3) Therefore claim X is falseYou can insult all you want, but as long as you don't use it as a premise, it is not a fallacy. It has nothing to do with "admitting" anything. That's just how it is. Arguments consists of premises and conclusions. So when I'm not using the insult as a premise, it is NOT part of my argument. "

You use insults as a premise for debasing the argument of the person you're having an argument with. Especially when included in the larger body of a response, they are designed to discredit the opinion or point of the poster by character assassination rather than an actual disproval of their statements. Every time you go and refer to people as morons, idiots, fucking retards, whatever, you're doing that. Even if you do couple those responses in with (what might be) legitimite replies, you're still committing the fallacy. It doesn't have anything to do with admitting anything because there's nothing to admit- it's plain to everyone that you are a frequent abuser of the fallacy. You do use the insult as a premise. Every single time."

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"MattyFTM said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"No. If you just say that someone is a moron, and leave it at that, you haven't replied to their argument at all. It's not an ad hominem. You just decided to not reply to the argument presented. If you you call them a moron, and then you precede to make counter arguments against his, that is not the ad hominem fallacy.If you say that the person is a moron, and then say it makes their argument void, that IS an ad hominem, Here's an ad hominem:1) You are a moron.2) Morons cannot have valid arguments. 3) Your argument is not valid. Here is an example of something that is not an ad hominem: Statement: You are a moron1) Premise A2) Premise B3) ConclusionWhen your argument is used as a premise or a conclusion in an argument, then it is the ad hominem fallacy. When you just insult someone, it is not. It is separate from your argument. Here's a better example of an ad hominem:1) Source A makes claim X2) There is something objectionable about Source A3) Therefore claim X is false"

The point is, you do not have to explicitly say something to imply it, and even if you are implying it, you are using it as part of your argument."

It's easy to tell when it is used as a premise. If it is, then it's an ad hominem. If you call someone a retard in the middle of an argument, not using it as a premise, then is it not. So even if you call someone retarded, yes, you are implying that they are, in fact, a retard. But that's not an ad hominem. That does not imply that it is part of your argument, it only implies that you think they are a retard. It does NOT imply that they are wrong because of them being retarded. Saying it does not make it a premise. "

If you are arguing with someone, and you call them an moron, or idiot, or whatever, of course you are implying it's because of their arguments. Why else would you be saying it while your arguing with them? You are being very illogical about this."

It's not the way I see it, that's how it IS. You guys don't get that this isn't my opinion, it's a rule of logic.

And my point is that insulting is not the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy.

"And my point is that insulting is not the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy. "

Ha, wow. Sorry, but what is "implied" is not part of a logical argument. What is implied is irrelevant since this is, you know, logic. It deals with premises and conclusions, not implications.

So, either the guy's skull is too thick to get through, or he's a troll; either way, he should be starved.

How is my skull too thick? You aren't going to change my mind about this, because it isn't an opinionated matter. It's a rule of logic.

This is ridiculous....

Well, in your example (somebody being divorced 29 times) wouldn't the past experiences of said person be enough evidence to not trust them on that particular aspect? Given that their advice could be valid (and that should be taken into consideration), but that advice should be taken much more hesitantly due to past actions. I think that said person would have to prove the relevance and truthfulness of his advice more than somebody who has never been divorced.

Edit: Also, I'm all for an intelligent debate, but when you consistently call the readers of your post "morons" throughout only to "reinforce" your point (although it really doesn't do that), I don't really feel that I'm in store for such a debate. Don't be a hypocrite.

Maybe that's a little off-topic, though, but isn't that what this board is for?

"Why is everyone against me when I just try and explain a RULE of logic? This is ridiculous...."