That's a red herring. Another informal fallacy.

This is what I said:

"For example, to dismiss something Trump says as false simply on the basis that he's a pathological liar is fallacious even if it's understandable."

"No, the fallacy is the argument itself; in this case of the form: Trump made an assertion therefore the assertion is false."

"Trump being a bullshitter and liar doesn't preclude him from making assertions that are true."

Agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

You have to draw a distiction between the argument and the facts. To attack an argument on the basis of character is a fallacy. To attack one's veracity pertaining to their rendition of facts based upon their character is not.

If Trump tells you he's more popular than Obama because he got more votes than Obama, and you reject that argument because you disbelieve his statement of the facts because he's known to misstate facts, that's not a fallacy. If, though, you reject the argument because you don't believe vote tally determines popularity because Trump said it, that'd be an ad hom.

Real example of conversation in another thread: Israel justifies attacks on Gaza because they say Hamas was breaching the barrier. Your response: If true, the attacks might be justified, but you question the source, so it might be unjustified.

Ad hom as to facts is ok. Ad hom as to reasoning not.

Trump says X and Trump usually lies about X therefore X is false is fallacious regardless of what X is.
Trump says X and Trump usually lies about X therefore X is probably false isn't.

Same thing:

What I said: The IDF said X and the IDF usually/often lie about X therefore X is probably/might be false (isn't fallacious).
What I didn't say: The IDF said X and the IDF usually/often lie about X therefore X is false (would be fallacious).

That's a different fallacy of drawing specific conclusions from prior facts. Remove ad hom, for example: My dog usually barks on Wednesday. It is Wednesday. Therefore my dog barked. That's fallacious.

I agree.

You committed the "I didn't read what you wrote" fallacy.

Throwing shade on a drug addict in a courtroom can be called an ad hom attack. The objective of the attack is not to prove that any particular statement is false, but to create doubt. And it may be that doubt is perfectly reasonable.

Note the difference between arguing that you're wrong vs arguing that it's reasonable to doubt you.

My dog usually barks on Wednesday. It is Wednesday. Therefore my dog barked. That's fallacious. — Hanover

? That obviously fits with what I said.

And:

My dog usually barks on Wednesday. It is Wednesday. Therefore my dog is likely to bark. That's not fallacious.

To attack an argument on the basis of character is a fallacy — Hanover

Yes. I know.

If you agree, great, we're done, Frank. If you disagree with something, let me know.

I appreciate that and feel the same way. Although the big risk with me is that I'm not nearly as charming in person. — T Clark

Who is?

My dog usually barks on Wednesday — Hanover

If that damn dog doesn't stop barking every Wednesday, it's going to have an unfortunate accident.

It does fit with what you said, but it's not an ad hom fallacy.

I never said it was.

Maybe my dog barked and I didn't hear you right.

Yes, it's not just a matter of emotional reactions, but I think that emotional reactions are of relevance to the topic. The emotional reactions are emotional reactions to something, so that something is also of relevance. What has been said is of relevance, as is how it has been or might be interpreted, and as is how it should be interpreted.

It's a belief if that's what he believes, and if he says that he's not antisemitic, or if he says that he's in pain, then it would make sense to give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he believes what he says, unless we have good enough reason to do otherwise.

Loaded questions are questions worded in such a way as to be suggestive, and they force more astute responders to give a carefully worded answer.

Send him to my place, I'll sort him out. :up:

If you disagree with something, let me know. — Baden

Ok. Wiki actually does explain the view that ad hom is not always a fallacy. It provides two opinions to that effect.

When I say disagree, I mean as in quote one of my statements and then disagree with it.

Here's how I entered the conversation by the way @frank.

Not taking sides or anything, but it sounds more like a Bulverism to me. — Baden

i.e. to say the original point of contention wasn't an ad hom.

Maybe I should clarify what I was trying to argue:

1) It's fallacious to dismiss an argument on the basis of its origin.
2) It's also fallacious to dismiss an assertion/statement of fact (completely) on the basis of its origin.
3) It's not however fallacious to question the credibility of an assertion on the basis of its origin.

The first two would be fallacies of irrelevance. Which fallacy of irrelevance would depend on how the dismissal is phrased. It seemed like Hanover was trying to make an argument, so I thought @T Clark had probably committed a Bulverism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

"One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth."

And I just said that mostly as an aside without trying to get in between the two of them.

T Clark ad hom'd Hanover. T Clark didn't realize that.

I think your notion of an ad hom is just too narrow.

Well, it's not a big deal, I suppose. I wouldn't trust a word that comes out of Hanover's mouth anyhow. (Unless he's talking about Sapientia's mother).

Fascinating stuff! I love the explanation and discussion of fallacies. There are so many of them, and with such colorful names. And that’s just the ones that I’ve committed in the last week. :wink:

But since this thread has morphed into “What the heck IS an Ad Hom?”, I’d like to go out on a limb here and say that the fallacy is not even relevant here. Let us review, shall we:

It was unquestionably less civil to call someone a dick than it was for someone to claim your position was sad. The former was bullying, the latter perhaps insensitive. It did seem though from his response that he was unoffended by your middle school taunt, yet by your response it was clear you were incapable of handling criticism maturely.
— Hanover

I will plead nolo contendere to a charge of misdemeanor hypocrisy. I like to talk about civility but I also like to call people names sometimes. I usually feel bad about it later, but if feels so good when I'm doing it.

In regard to Galuchat, he sets out to show contempt for people with the intent to hurt them for his own what, enjoyment? Did you read the things he wrote about Tiff? Disgusting. He deserves a rhetorical slap-down.

As for "handling criticism maturely" it shouldn't surprise you to find out that, after the things you have said to me and about me over the past few weeks, I don't give your criticism much credibility. — T Clark

Then Han’s response about the alledged ad hom:

As for "handling criticism maturely" it shouldn't surprise you to find out that, after the things you have said to me and about me over the past few weeks, I don't give your criticism much credibility.
— T Clark

Sounds like yet another irrelevant ad hom.
- Hanover

I propose that TC’s comment, the alleged ad hominem fallacy, was NOT part of any logical argument, and qualifies more as an opinion or preference, rather than some point of debate. Even though it was about a person, rather than a food preference or political opinion or something. So in TC’s own mind, he doesn’t trust Han’s credibility, and states that. Opinion and personal preference.

If that is unconvincing, and an ad hom is even possible here, it is probably the equivalent of a ticky-tack foul in sports, barely meeting the definition of even a character reference, let alone a character attack. Merely a response in kind. And definitely not an example of name-calling.

Verdict: throw the case out. (But continue with this discussion of fallacies. Very educational.)
:up:

An interesting upshot is that philosophers don't always go for the direct frontal attack. Doing that can be a little sophomoric because we all stand on a foundation of blind-ass assumptions.

Philosophers deploy the power of persuasion in a variety of ways including explicitly accusing any opposition of some terrible crime like mysticism or insignificance.

And just to show my wisdom in judgments... Solomon had it all wrong. He should’ve cut the baby up into a hundred pieces so everyone could have shared it. Case closed! :razz:

Verdict: throw the case out. (But continue with this discussion of fallacies. Very educational.) — 0 thru 9

I was thinking of starting up a thread with just that as the subject - The Logical Fallacy Fallacy questioning the value of the idea of logical fallacies. Although the so called Ad Hominem Fallacy is the most misused in my experience, all the others are pretty lame too.

I propose that TC’s comment, the alleged ad hominem fallacy, was NOT part of any logical argument — 0 thru 9

An ad hom is an informal fallacy though:

"In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Informal_fallacy

Might be an interesting discussion. :)

Also we've veered pretty far off-topic here. Should leave this discussion for the more general issue of failed communication.

If that is unconvincing, and an ad hom is even possible here, it is probably the equivalent of a ticky-tack foul in sports, barely meeting the definition of even a character reference, let alone a character attack. Merely a response in kind. And definitely not an example of name-calling. — 0 thru 9

Yes, it wasn't a biggie. Agree there.