Haiti Disaster Relief Donation Links

RationalWiki would like to make it easy for people to donate directly to major relief organizations helping in the Haiti earthquake aftermath. All donation links on this page are direct to the organizations. No money goes through any hands at RationalWiki or its members. Red Cross Relief Doctors Without Borders Haiti Earthquake Response US State Department's page, including the ability to TXT a donation to the Red Cross

From RationalWiki

The phrase ad hominem argument (often called an ad hominem attack) comes from the Latin "at the person". It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal.^[1] It occurs when people who are unable to attack the argument itself resort to attacking the person making it. As such arguments have nothing to do with the topic, they have no weight or validity against the argument. This is the case even if the attack is true; two plus two still equals four even if the first person to point this out was the most morally reprehensible person to have ever lived.

Contents 1 Strict usage 2 Subtle uses 3 Blatant uses 4 False positives 5 See also 6 Footnotes

[edit] Strict usage

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about A

Therefore X is false

[edit] Subtle uses

Often, ad hominem attacks are used subtly in order to influence the views of spectators. There are many forms of this, such as pointing out bad things they (The opponent) have done in the past in arguments about morality (They are not attacking the person's points about morality, they are attacking the person), or using exclamations (for example, "Jeez!") to imply that the person is incredibly slow at understanding your point. While ad hominem attacks are used mostly in arguments about philosophy or morals, it can also be used in other debates, such as when people supporting evolution are said to be "justifying genocide and mass suicide", though this could also be referred to as a straw man fallacy.

[edit] Blatant uses

Ad hominem attacks are hardly ever used plainly, and people who do are generally trolls who want to provoke people to fight. These are often partnered with not even responding to the person's post, using arguments that make no sense, and thus have never been heard of, then mocking their opponent when they fail to find a rebuttal, and many other such techniques.

[edit] False positives

Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence five times and they still refuse to address it, or provide counterexamples, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a statement of fact.

[edit] See also

• Ad hoc
• Argumentum ex culo

[edit] Footnotes

1. ↑ This was part of the definition used on the University Challenge question on the subject. And who are we to doubt the Almighty Paxman?

Articles about logical fallacies
Formal fallacies
Ad hominem	Argument by assertion	Negative proof	Non sequitur
Informal fallacies
Ad hoc	Argumentum ad nauseam	Argumentum ex culo	Argument from ignorance	Argument from incredulity	Balance fallacy
Begging the question	Correlation does not equal causation	Equivocation	False analogy	False dilemma	Moving the goalposts
No True Scotsman	One single proof
Red herrings
Argumentum ad baculum	Argumentum ad populum	Argument from adverse consequences	Association fallacy	Bullshit	Poisoning the well
My enemy's enemy	Spotlight fallacy	Straw man	Style over substance fallacy	Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Conditional fallacies
Argument from authority	Galileo gambit	Slippery slope
Fallacious argument styles
Chewbacca Defense	Gish Gallop	Ham Hightail	JAQing off