Changes

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==

The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms, the most common of which are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms, the most common of which are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the [[kettle]] black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the [[kettle]] black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

'''Example:''' Atheist scientist A might present arguments that there is no [[God]].  Opponent C might respond by stating that A is fat and should be able to use science to control his weight.  This would be an example of the ''tu quoque'' fallacy.

'''Example:''' A [[liberal]] states that people should not vote for the [[Republican Party|Republican]] candidate because he is a racist. A [[conservative]] replies with "well you are also a racist so your argument doesn't count!". In this case, while the liberal may in fact be a racist, this doesn't preclude them from voting against a racist candidate.

 

Our page [[Atheist hypocrisy]] is full of examples as well, although this is probably the point of the page.

== Example ==

== Example ==

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music.  It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment.  But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ''ad hominem'' attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music. Additionally, the Nazis' misdeeds had nothing to do with their ability to critique opera. However, even if a tone-deaf person, who is not a good judge of music, said he liked Wagner, it would still be an ''ad hominem'' attack to conclude Wagner is bad.

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music.  It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment.  But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ''ad hominem'' attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music. Additionally, the Nazis' misdeeds had nothing to do with their ability to critique opera. However, even if a tone-deaf person, who is not a good judge of music, said he liked Wagner, it would still be an ''ad hominem'' attack to conclude Wagner is bad.

==Examples of non-ad hominem arguments==

==When ad hominem isn't ad hominem==

* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument—so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument—so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.