The Ad Hominem Fallacy
And how to not be annoying in arguments (Part II)
This article is part of series: Check the Part 1 here:
1. The Straw Man Fallacy
2. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
Me: Let’s order ramen tonight!
Friend: Well, you’re a half-witted, scruffy-looking, papaya-breathed person who put sugar in your pizza instead of salt, so your opinion on food is irrelevant.
Me: …
Friend: …
Me: …
Friend: So it’s settled — we’re having tacos.
In the argument above, the dude directly attacked my personal traits in order to undermine my opinion. The attack was COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion but somehow it gave the impression that it’s addressing the original argument. The term for this kind of rhetoric is Ad Hominem.
And fine, I admit it — Me was the friend, and the friend was me.
What is Ad Hominem?
Ad Hominem is used to describe the fallacy wherein the speaker attacks an opponent’s character rather than the position they are maintaining.
In Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement, Ad Hominem is the second lowest level, just better than name-calling.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an Ad Hominem attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.
So the latin phrase ad hominem actually translates in English to “to the person”, which makes sense. The same thing cannot be said about Google Translate…
Types, examples, and logical forms:
1. Abusive Ad Hominem — the person is directly attacked.
“Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”
Person 1 claims Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is false.
2. Circumstantial Ad Hominem — claim is discredited because personal circumstances might motivate a person’s argument.
You can hardly convince me that increases in the military budget are desirable when I happen to know that you work in an ammunitions factory.
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 has an interest in Y being true.
Therefore, Y is false.
3. Guilt by Association Ad Hominem — claim is discredited because of a person’s association to something negative.
We cannot approve your political reform because Mr. Crazy has also promoted this political reform, and we know he’s crazy.
Person 1 states that Y is true.
Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.
Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.
4. Tu Quoque Ad Hominem — Past actions discredit your argument.
Dad: Stop smoking — it’s injurious to your health.
Son: You started smoking when you were in school, so why should I listen to you?
Person 1 is claiming that Y is true.
But person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.
Therefore, Y must not be true.
Note:
A thing to note is that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some cases, a personal attack can be relevant to the discussion at hand. But more often than not, these arguments are not based on facts/data and often expose people’s prejudices.
Cool things to check out:
- Yourdictionary.com — Other Ad Hominem Examples
- Logicallyfallacious.com — In a remarkably accurate website name, check out other logical fallacies.
- Fun exercise: Let’s see who can find the most Ad Hominem in this video!
4. A meme that’s attacking me personally:
If you like Purple Theory, sign up for the email list to get notified about new posts!
