Logical Fallacy Lesson 1, Argumentum Ad Hominem
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL1AAH

Here is the basic definition of Ad Hominem:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about A.
Therefore claim X is false.
That is ad hominem.

Now, unfortunately, the great stupid, ignorant mob of people who like to parade their foolishness on my blogs seem to have done just enough research to know ad hominem has something to do with insult or something in that general nature. So whenever I say something mean or insulting, they accuse me of ad hominem. They are guilty of the logical fallacy ad hominem and are hypocrites when they do so. Because, for the foolish, there is a huge misconception about the fallacy.

They say something (it usually isn't math, but just to give you the idea,) like 1 + 1 = 3.
I'll say, "No, 1 + 1 = 2," say I know so because the very definition of two is two ones, then add something like: "You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about." Or, "you are guilty of this or that," or "You are a liar," or "you are a hypocrite," or something mean.

These twits then think they can try to dodge the bullet, my "1 + 1 = 2," by wrongly accusing me of ad hominem.

This is ad hominem in itself, when they try to do this. This is hypocrisy. This is a red herring, this is non Sequitor, and usually it's a bald assertion because they just baldly accuse me of it. It's a very, very bad idea to accuse someone of ad hominem if you don't know what the fuck youre talking about.

Ad hominem is NOT defined as an insult. I've said it dozens of times on my blogs, it is NOT fallacious unless it is used in attempt to prove something or refute something. If I aver it separately, after I made an argument that refuted yours, then it is not illogical, and is therefore not a logical fallacy, and is therefore not ad hominem. Is an insult, backed and supported with merit, an argument to the man? Yes, but it is not the FALLACY argument to the man. Read the definition of the FALLACY ad hominem again and read its basic form again.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

Do you understand? If I said, "1 + 1 = 2," in my reply to your argument or assertion, then follow with "you stupid dumbass," I am not guilty of ad hominem. 1 + 1 = 2 is my refute, not the insult.

But these idiots think they can get away with ignoring my refute and attack my manner or emotion that went with it! Guess what that is! That's ad hominem!

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about A.
Therefore claim X is false.

1.) Samuel makes argument X.
2.) There is something objectionable about Samuel's emotional and manner characteristics.
"You insulted me, that's ad hominem!"
3.) Therefore X is false.

If someone accuses you of ad hominem incorrectly, then they are matching the very definition of ad hominem themselves. And then you can turn their own hypocrisy on them as well, if they had bad manner when they opened their mouth.

Pointing out characteristics of a person's emotion or manner when they make an argument is ad hominem, it is attacking a person's characteristics, and it is not attacking their argument. So usually my arguments are never even brought into question at all when these kinds of idiots open their mouths.

So let's review. This is ad hominem logical fallacy:

Person A: "1 + 1 = 2."
Person B: "Why should I listen to you? You're an idiot!"

This is not:

Person A: "1 + 1 = 2, you stupid dumbass."

That may be sliming and against the rules of a debate, but it is not illogical. It is not illogical. It is not a logical fallacy.

Insulting something isn't illogical, being mean isn't illogical, it's how, why, and when you do so that is or is not. Trying to use a person's characteristic to prove something that isn't directly related is illogical. Trying to use a person's characteristics to refute their arguments is illogical, because it doesn't actually work to refute them.

However, if the topic is about the person, if that's what you're debating, go ahead.

Or if you aver it separately, and not in attempt to use it to dismiss or refute an assertion, then it is not illogical, it is neither ad hominem nor any fallacy. It's mead, it's rude, but isn't illogical. It isn't illogical at all. Not one damn bit.

If you disagree with this, if you think being harsh when you refute voids your logic, then you believe 1 + 1 magically stops becoming 2 when you're harsh about it. And if you believe that, you are stupid. It is what you are. Deal with it. Oh, I called you stupid? Guess you can dismiss my entire blog on account of me making the logical fallacy ad hominem now, huh? If you think so, then I'll have to call you out on a few fallacies, not the least of which, is ad hominem. Of course there is red herring (trying to turn away from the argument at hand), non Sequitor (not explaining why all my logic was wrong when I was rude about it) and some others.

So, ladies and gentlemen, unless I say, and only say, in refute to an argument, an attack to your characteristics, and the topic isn't about you, then I am not guilty of ad hominem.

The following conditions must be met for something to be guilty of ad hominem:

- The topic must not be about the person, because if it is then an argument to the man would not be illogical, it would be logical because that's what the topic is.
- They must be trying to use it as a refute to an argument (or as an assertion of an argument).
- They must be attacking characteristics, possible motives, or previously held views or opinions.

Why is ad hominem fallacious? It's no such much why, but when. An attack to a man, in and of it self, is not illogical. It is not illogical, unless it's a mistake or a bald assertion. If it's on topic, if it has merit behind it, why would it then be illogical? If an attack to a man can be logical, then that means it isn't always illogical.

It is when something attempts to use it for something it can't logically be used for when it becomes illogical.

To prove my point, I'll have to give you an example of a completely logical use of an attack to them man. If I can show ONE example of an attack to a man as being a logical decision, then I will prove, with complete mathematical certainty, that attacks to the man are not ALWAYS illogical.

Say you're in a debate over whether or not Bob, one of the debaters in the debate, has a broken arm bone.
During it, you aver some evidence: "Your bone is sticking out of your flesh, you can see it right there!"
"Hey!" says Bob, "That's pointing out a characteristic of ME. That's ad hominem!"

Where you being illogical? Be accused you of a logical fallacy, he's saying you were being illogical. Were you guilty of an argument to the man? You sure as hell were. But guess what - there was nothing illogical about what you said.
Arguments to the man, it is proven, are not always fallacious.

Therefore what I said is true: It is how it is used that makes it illogical or not.

"Bob, you're ugly, you're Jewish, and you're stupid. Therefore you have a broken arm."

That is illogical. That is a logical fallacy. That is the ad hominem we all know and love. Do you understand? Am I clear? I wrote a blog titled "Mind Over Manner" on this very issue and people still don't get it. How many more blogs do I have to write before you whiney twits out their get the God Damn hint?

- The topic must not be about the person, because if it is then an argument to the man would not be illogical, it would be logical because that's what the topic is.
- They must be trying to use it as a refute to an argument (or as an assertion of an argument).
- They must be attacking characteristics, possible motives, or previously held views or opinions.

Read it. Learn it.
If the topic is about Bob, then it can't be ad hominem fallacy.
If it isn't used as the refute, but just bad manner while refuting, then it isn't ad hominem fallacy. It's just bad manner and maybe against the rules of a debate tournament.
If it isn't attacking the man, then it is not ad hominem fallacy.

I don't want to have to say it again (although I just know I'll have to).

"Why should we listen to you, Samuel? You just think you're always right! You think you're better than everyone else! You're just saying this so you can be free of logical fallacies and yet attack others with them!"

Non Sequitor - I don't see how that links to the arguments and topic at hand.
Red Herring - Diverting from the topic at hand.
Ad hominem - You know why.

Idiot.

Samuel Thomas Poling: Blog 112, Logical Fallacy Lesson 1, Argumentum Ad Hominem