Ad Hominem is a distraction, person who uses this fallacy tries to distract from the sensitive topic of conversation, you may notice that person has mysteriously shifted from the main topic, toward attacking the person who makes certain claim.
I think people often use it when they are wrong and they are not capable of intellectual debate, so they attack others to feel better about themselves. Its understandable for kids and teens but as an adult you really should be able to engage anyone in debate even if you are wrong. if you cant admit you are wrong than you cant grow which further perpetuates the inability to engage in intellectual debate to begin with.
So Hitler claims that the reason Germany lost the war is because of the jewish people. I point out that Hitler is a liar and regularly lies I'm engaging in a "logical fallacy". Sorry. He was a bad person. Bad people exist. Calling something or someone what it is or they are is not a logical fallacy. It may not be diplomatic, but it is not in any way false.
People always use this when they know my age. Just because I'm eighteen doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. If you think I'm wrong tell me the real reason why you think I'm wrong.
Ugh I hear that. I remember being on some websites and just because I was 14 or so and knew a lot of big words they assumed I was being pretentious. Most people might learn at the same speed so I guess in most cases older people are wiser but if you're younger but learn much faster than an older person who doesn't learn very quickly at all you're going to pass them out sooner or later.
That would be a fallacy on their part. I, as someone a bit older, have even been told that because i am so young (when i'm not, they seem to just assume because i have a different opinion) i have such and such opinion.
I feel that ad hominem is a pretty frequent fall-back for internet arguments even when someone hasn't actually committed an ad hominem fallacy. I'm not aware of any studies on the matter, but I know that I've had to call out a number of people for slipping it into a rebuttal without reason just for the sake of attempting to undermine their opponent.
+Katie B It is easily one of the cheapest and most over-used argument tactics invoked by pseudo-intellectuals. Rarely do I ever find it being used in the correct context. I too have had to call out several people on using the term even though I never attacked their character. Another tactic is when they start attacking very petty grammatical and punctuation errors (ironically a potential Ad Hominem in itself).
@@xtntxex I've had people very clearly attack my character instead of my argument, yet when I call them out on it, they tell me I'm using "ad hominem" in the wrong context, then attack my reading skills.
I think I've watched these videos a million times. I always had an okay understanding of these fallacies but these videos really helped with me understanding them completely.
In this comments section: People trying to cite examples of Ad Hominem claiming only one political side uses these arguments (when in reality both left/right wing politicians use this fallacy).
don't mean to perpetuate the authority fallacy but the intern behind this robot skeleton studied latin for 10 years and it's actually pronounced like "quo-qway" :)
While, I am not sure how much it matters, as a student who is in their fourth year of Latin, I agree that it is in fact pronounced "quo-qway". The more you know.
I learnt it is pronounced like "Kvo Kve". "Qu" is pronounced "kv". Like in "Quod erat demonstrandum", "quod" sounds like "Kvod". But Latin was changed during the centuries, for example Julius Caesar is the Middle Age Latin form of Iulius Caesar. The Romans haven't K, J, W, Y. They were added later for words from Greek, for example...
You should've mentioned that insulting a person is _not_ an ad hominem. This needs to be said explicitly because people don't understand it. It's only a fallacy if insult _in place_ of an argument. If you insult _with_ an argument or your insult is actually a valid argument in itself, then it's not an ad hominem.
Good. Someone already explained it. Now I don't need to. Though I'll add an example, if someone tells you 2+2 is 169 and you say to them "No, it's 4, you moron." then you have not invoked the fallacy. It is in fact 4 and they are indeed a moron.
I've seen people use a kind of meta fallacy where one party calls out the other for using a fallacy and then proceed to disregard everything else they say, no matter if they have a point or not. Most often people will cite Ad Hominem incorrectly just like this, where an insult is made into a fallacy and the argument gets ignored on the basis of this. It makes for a rather strange meta debate that sound more like an argument about Latin.
insults add no truth to your position nor falsity to your opponent's that polite, reasonable debate/discussion can already accomplish. Also, any argument can be made tastefully and politely, even against holders of the most ludicrous or morally outrageous positions. The only "use" it has is to either release frustration at your opponent and their allies or to try to win on the cheap by appealing to traits widely known to inspire petty distaste ("stupidity", "weird", "wimpy", "over-sensitive", the list is endless). As such, it also makes you and people like you look like you have a mere axe to grind. So it is that any audience enlightenment is so slight or any other benefit gained so trivial, that the need to maintain decorum and politeness is far outweighs the need to paint your opponent in a bad light. All this is why insults are not allowed in polite, formal, reasoned debate - and indeed why debates have moderators in the first place.
Quick, easy to understand, and examples? Why has it taken me this long to understand what this is? I hear this term get used all the time in debates but never really knew what the full thing meant. I considered it a form of dodging a question and in some ways I guess that isn't wrong depending on the situation. Great vid
I'm impressed that you accurately described the fallacy, but you touched on so little. You made no mention of the guilt by association flavor of argumentum ad hominem OR, my personal favorite, the ad hominem ad hominem.
This argument falls apart when one realizes that holding certain ideas automatically reveals a person as foolish/intellectually inferior/mentally unbalanced, etc. The trick is often used as a final ploy, by a defeated interlocquetor.
I think the Ad Hominem Fallacy is the greatest indication of a person lack of understanding. The worst part is that its used so much in politics. there is probably some correlation between that and all the problems society faces
The biggest problem with people who think they understand this fallacy occurs when they use it in regards to any subjective observation of their character, for example: Me: You're a fool. Person: AD HOMINEM!! This is not Ad Hominem. It is a subjective statement. Not a deductive reason for asserting their position is foolish.. A perfect reply would be: Me: No, that is not Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem would have been "You're a fool, therefore you're argument is wrong". Me calling you a fool is simply a statement. And using the Ad Hominem fallacy wrong makes you... foolish. I hate when people get this fallacy wrong, because their thinking is ironically fallacious.
The fallacy I come across the most in internet conversations is the: "who says that? prove it! have you seen it with your own eyes?" argument. On the one hand, it is weakening your position by jamming the discussion with research work. Questioning things which are easy to google (lmgtfy helps). The other part of it is then discrediting any source you use. To point out this fallacy in an argument, you have to really dig deep and talk about how we "know" things in today's society. How something can be plausible and likely, although we haven't seen it with our own eyes. That - under certain circumstances - media can be trusted etc. (just realized - it might be two fallacies, the prove-it fallacy and the do-my-research fallacy).
I run across this all the time. They ask for proof, I provide it, and they pick it apart. I just tell them to do their own research. The bad part is they will only read articles that support their view, while I read articles from everywhere on both sides of the issue. Those are two of their favorites.
Hugely important point to grasp that too few people seem to: Someone attacking your character is not itself a fallacy. It is only when this attack on your character is used to dismiss or discredit your argument that the other party is guilty of a fallacy. Without it, they're just being an ass, which does not discredit their argument, and you claiming otherwise is hilariously you committing the fallacy you are falsely accusing them of.
@0:33 what he says here actually demonstrates that the "ad hominem fallacy" isn't actually a fallacy. fallacies are ALWAYS fallacious. but the ad hominem can sometimes be relevant and therefore part of a valid and/or sound argument. it makes it very different from, say, the genetic fallacy, no true scotsman, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, etc. whose use renders a deductive argument invalid.
Interesting, but there is a fallacy for things like that. The fallacy fallacy is the logic that any argument WITH a fallacy is invalid. Yes, a fallacious argument is faulty. However, that doesn't necessarily make it false.
But what if the behavior of the person is related to his argument? I think this is something that requires a profund analysis, because there are A LOT of arguments that are extremely contraditory depending on the person that's using it.
Just a small point, but I wasn't sent a link to any of your videos. I just searched for examples of fallacious arguments, so that I can try to make sure that I don't - or at least be less likely to - form a fallacious argument myself.
These vids are just so great! Really well done and the information can be used readily and practically. Making critical thinking skills accessible? Sublime! Keep it up!
Logic has always struck me as an inherently fascinating subject, and these videos certainly provide quick and funny hits of it. I do have my doubts as to whether they’ll actually help anyone win an argument. So point out others’ logical fallacies if you must, but bear in mind that you might be the only one who learns anything as a result.
so when someone shows a bad behavior of one group/person and their opponent justifies it by showing behaviors of another group/person as an argument answer, does this count?
Had to rewatch the video because I was just distracted the first time figuring out why you're so familiar 😂😂😂 Was just a little surprised to see you outside Mythology videos 😂
Note that, even if the character or actions of the person aren't related to their argument, simply criticizing them isn't fallacious UNLESS that is the main point of your argument. Saying "You're a hypocrite because X, and your argument is wrong because Y." is not fallacious. At all.
The part that pisses me off is that someone said I was using an "ad hominem" attack when I'm criticizing someone for believing in the fallacious ideals that I'm criticizing and referring to that as an ad hominem. I didn't know what it meant before but now that I do, it still doesn't make sense in that context.
i request further explanation regarding the example of the political ad; isn't choosing a representative about evaluating the candidate's character, empathy, sound reasoning and behavior? at least in part?
I am in a Rhetoric class and we are debating if the US ought to prioritize national security over digital privacy. One of the affirmitive arguememnts is that we willingly surrender info to companies like google without really reading the terms and conditions and so should take no issue with agencies taking info. Its nice to have a name to put to how wrong this arguememt is.
This argument easily and wholly encompasses the anti-brony stance, I find haters or even blind argument comments utterly hilarious for this reason and I'm glad I now have a name for this type of argument.
Ad Hominems don't work on me because I can seamlessly incorporate both a defense of my original point and of my character into a single striking rebuttal.
I see this all the time in online discussions, especially when the issue of bigotry comes up. Somebody will say something that, if you're assuming the worst about them, could be interpreted as sexist or racist or homophobic. Then the person with whom they're debating will hold up that line as some kind of triumph, as if by saying that the accused bigot has invalidated every other point they were trying to make.
I'd say that MOST political ads attacking the opponent directly are not actually examples of ad hominem. To me, they usually seem intended to imply that a politician is likely to slack in their duties, ignore the concerns of a large group of their constituents ("taxpayers" is a popular one) in favor of their own interests or those of cronies and lobbyists, renege on campaign promises, and/or just generally take stances you would disagree with on future issues with ethical implications (or, at worst, seem just plain stupid in the eyes of voters who see good character as equating to or stemming from personal competence). These are all relevant concerns for voters, even if the ads themselves may be groundless smears. A public official may have good policies and ideas, but they could still be an embezzler, for example. Character does matter in the case of an election. Of course, I don't watch much broadcast television anymore. Maybe ads these days really are all about how punching babies negates a person's stance on foreign policy.
I remember in the last UK general election a massive sign went up of the current Prime Minster at the time, Gordon Brown, saying he would raise taxes. It's not directly Ad Hominem, but it was basically a smear campaign by the opposition party.
CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. "You're embarrassing yourself", "Don't you come at me with that nonsense", both I saw back-to-back in one discussion the other day. Funny how when it's on a mainstream broadcast, it seems to target conservatives almost every time.
If the person is a liar, for example, then this Ad Hominem thing sort of falls apart. The same goes if the person has an extreme left wing or right wing political agenda.
If you call to attention that someone is a liar, you are attacking the ethos of his or her argument. However, some arguments only need logos. For instance, if a psychopath were helping me solve a math problem and proved a mathematical statement, I wouldn't attack the argument for her mathematical conclusion based on the fact that I couldn't trust her. Her logic didn't need any credibility behind it. Same in politics: a person doesn't have to have the best interest of the people in mind to have the best solution to the problem at hand.
What you're saying is mostly true, but in politics a person's characters does have a bearing on their candidacy, and therefore their ideas. This has been debated throughout history. Even the Bible addresses this issue in Luke 16:10 and it's good, practical advice regardless of one's religion; "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."
holy fuck if you click on the share button you will see GIF option comes up , youtube actually allows us to create GIFs on here this is the tumblr dream!
obesity isnt just a problem in america... to people not from america, it is just common sense to use the term 'western culture' or '**list of countries/demographic region that includes all that are effected to a notable level**'. i live in the southern hemisphere, and where **all** americans blindly spurt out what season it is and how it should affect me (even though it doesnt because the seasons arent the same), people from other countries, such as the UK, have the common sense to say 'assuming you are in the northern hemisphere', or equivilent. apparently common sense and courtesy stops at american borders...
You make it sound like he said "Obesity is a problem in America and ONLY America" which is completely wrong. He is American, so obviously he'd focus on America with the argument. He never said obesity isn't a problem in other countries. If that offended you, that's your problem, because there is nothing offensive about it and you're pretty much the only one offended. Having to list all the countries affected by whatever you're talking about has nothing to do with common sense or courtesy. In fact it doesn't make any sense at all, since everyone with actual common sense would realize that you never excluded other nations affected, unless you specifically say "only in America." Also, drop that holier-than-thou attitude.
While the context of your statement isn't really related to the video (only slightly on the referenced "example") I'd like to give you perspective of why a lot of American's do this. Being an American myself, and a decently educated one at that, I still find myself making "global assumptions" with a "local mindset". The reason you find a lot of American's do that is due to our culture saturation, we see other cultures as the default, instead of self sustaining entities. We are regionally insensitive (even among our own country, ask someone on the east coast what a company is called and someone on the west coast will tell them they're wrong). We are raised with a very local-centric ideology, which lends it self to our seeming "ignorance". The US borders 2 countries, both of which we know significantly more about than say European countries (or even more rarely, non-Western Europeon countries). This is due to the above stated idea that American's see our own culture as default and thus other cultures aren't as important. The best ideology I can express it in would be, imagine living on the sun (America) and culture and practices being light, America so aggressively spreads its culture and influence, but we only see it as "normal". We're blinded by the reflection of our own self represented so many other places, that we drown out less bright ideas and cultures. There is representation from this in other cultures that have strong influences, for example Japanese Culture is very aggressive and thus so has impacted a lot of the US. Standing on the sun and looking out at other light sources dampens your clarity on them. Many other cultures have a better picture of their place in the bigger picture of things, less blinded by their own culture, they see the sun, they see the stars (yes I know the Sun is a star), and the moon. It's hard to explain it, but it is something we are raised with and it's more difficult than you'd imagine to naturally take a different position on things.
***** I live in New Zealand and I agree with you. There are very few people down here that don't know things like the capital of the US and UK, at least a few state names and loads of popular culture things. Meanwhile most of my friends from america only know about NZ due to LotR and most of my english friends know about it being an old colony, although a few of them know more in both cases of course.
***** I live in New Zealand, and i cannot understand how a whole nation can be so ridiculously disrespectful. firstly, you go out of your way to be different to the commonwealth in petty ways, such as changing spellings because you feel like it, and trying to make every system of measurement different to *literally the rest of the world*, then pass it off as the norm. im not blaming individuals here, as i am required to make generalisations, but the fact that your country assumes that it is the ultimate culture and foundation of the world, even when it isnt, is just disrespectful. even just on youtube, americans never even mention that countries have different time zones, they always base time off of the time zones they are in, whereas the rest of the wold uses GMT, so that easy comparisons an be made. the entire imperial system, fahrenheit temperature measurement, etc, its like you dont even understand how stupid and petty the world thinks you are when reffering to your 'culture'. another assumption i have noticed that americans make is when they are travelling to other countries. i have never seen an american in new zealand, but i have seen one, or two on my holidays to australia. where a non-american tourist would be like 'wow, your culture is so interesting, and strange to me.' the american attitude seems to be 'wow this culture is so shit! i would hate to live here. america is obviously the only sane culture in the world.' im not saying all americans are like this, but from what i have seen, and from what some of my friends that have been to america have said (they would have gone there and explained things about NZ culture), that seems to be how most americans think, and it is ignorant, close-minded, and disrespectful.
PJemus Eh, I meet plenty of americans where I live, and very few of them are actually like that, although everyone usually holds home higher than strange countries. On the internet though, and youtube in particular especially, a lot of americans are not making their country proud with how they treat others from other nations. I wouldn't judge them all (or even a majority) of them based on internet pricks. That and don't mistake ignorance for intent. Edit: and there is a difference in the temperature measurements other than a name, there are some reasons to use the american one, although none making a scientific difference.
is it ad hom if they say what you're saying is stupid but don't give a reason why? or they insult you and say you're wrong but don't address what you are actually saying?
Can an ad hominem fallacy be when a person has their own argument, before their own argument is addressed, the same person making the argument attacks their opponent calls them out of their names, insulting their intelligence is this an ad hominem fallacy?
Problem with this: Person A makes a claim about subject X. Person B is an expert on subject X, and points out that this claim X is wrong. Person A insists that X is right, without providing any evidence. Person B reminds A that B is an expert, while A has no actual insight into the topic. Person A accuses B of "appeal to authority" and "ad hominem". The problem here is, that A hasn't made any argument to begin with.
If i was person B, i would find this an opportune moment to teach someone about subject X. However, sometimes people just don't have the time and it's not important. Anyhow, the appeal to authority would be an incorrect label here as well since it doesn't apply to experts in the field being argued about.
UA-cam recommended this video to me, so I guess it thinks I need to learn this information. But I hear UA-cam also pigs out on burgers so what does it know about video recommendations? Sorted. :D
Not saying his policies aren't bad(they are). Just people don't really argue about his policies they just yell: "RACIST SEXIST BIGOT!" And then you ask why and they say: "he's not a good candidate cause he hates all Mexicans and women!"
BattousaiHBr They all are to some degree. If people didn't get filled up with emotions, we could always be perfectly rational and reasonable. Our emotions color everything we do, everything we see, everything we experience. If we believe something to be true, we'll do everything beyond reason to try and make sure others see that same truth. Because doing it within reason is extremely difficult and often requires a lot of hard work.
You just explained the internet perfectly
😂😂 fr
Ad Hominem is a distraction, person who uses this fallacy tries to distract from the sensitive topic of conversation, you may notice that person has mysteriously shifted from the main topic, toward attacking the person who makes certain claim.
I think people often use it when they are wrong and they are not capable of intellectual debate, so they attack others to feel better about themselves. Its understandable for kids and teens but as an adult you really should be able to engage anyone in debate even if you are wrong. if you cant admit you are wrong than you cant grow which further perpetuates the inability to engage in intellectual debate to begin with.
@@jpmking9635perfectly said.
So Hitler claims that the reason Germany lost the war is because of the jewish people. I point out that Hitler is a liar and regularly lies I'm engaging in a "logical fallacy". Sorry. He was a bad person. Bad people exist. Calling something or someone what it is or they are is not a logical fallacy. It may not be diplomatic, but it is not in any way false.
People always use this when they know my age. Just because I'm eighteen doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. If you think I'm wrong tell me the real reason why you think I'm wrong.
You are wrong.
Ugh I hear that. I remember being on some websites and just because I was 14 or so and knew a lot of big words they assumed I was being pretentious. Most people might learn at the same speed so I guess in most cases older people are wiser but if you're younger but learn much faster than an older person who doesn't learn very quickly at all you're going to pass them out sooner or later.
That would be a fallacy on their part. I, as someone a bit older, have even been told that because i am so young (when i'm not, they seem to just assume because i have a different opinion) i have such and such opinion.
I agree 100%. Age unfortunately is one of the worst arguments, unless age is directly related to the issue we are talking about.
Democrats always heavily influence the younger age group for obvious reasons.
I feel that ad hominem is a pretty frequent fall-back for internet arguments even when someone hasn't actually committed an ad hominem fallacy. I'm not aware of any studies on the matter, but I know that I've had to call out a number of people for slipping it into a rebuttal without reason just for the sake of attempting to undermine their opponent.
+Katie B It is easily one of the cheapest and most over-used argument tactics invoked by pseudo-intellectuals. Rarely do I ever find it being used in the correct context. I too have had to call out several people on using the term even though I never attacked their character. Another tactic is when they start attacking very petty grammatical and punctuation errors (ironically a potential Ad Hominem in itself).
@@xtntxex I've had people very clearly attack my character instead of my argument, yet when I call them out on it, they tell me I'm using "ad hominem" in the wrong context, then attack my reading skills.
I think I've watched these videos a million times. I always had an okay understanding of these fallacies but these videos really helped with me understanding them completely.
In this comments section:
People trying to cite examples of Ad Hominem claiming only one political side uses these arguments (when in reality both left/right wing politicians use this fallacy).
This is completely true.
Thank you
No they don’t you eggheaded buffoon, god you’re stupid
The left far far more than the right with a heavy dose of continuous shit bombing.
@@MrJohnnyDistortion Yeah lol, the left has literally gained popularity by being known to use ad hominem attacks on Twitter
don't mean to perpetuate the authority fallacy but the intern behind this robot skeleton studied latin for 10 years and it's actually pronounced like "quo-qway"
:)
Well Latin is a dead language anyway so who cares right?
cartoon hangover really hate little childrens, so his ideas about latin pronunciation are wrong, DEATH WRONG!
While, I am not sure how much it matters, as a student who is in their fourth year of Latin, I agree that it is in fact pronounced "quo-qway". The more you know.
OMG this guy that created Adventure Time! You have no idea how much influence you had on me! Thank You!
I learnt it is pronounced like "Kvo Kve".
"Qu" is pronounced "kv". Like in "Quod erat demonstrandum", "quod" sounds like "Kvod". But Latin was changed during the centuries, for example Julius Caesar is the Middle Age Latin form of Iulius Caesar. The Romans haven't K, J, W, Y. They were added later for words from Greek, for example...
I love how i had to watch an Ad Hominem political ad before i could even watch this video
The video should have been called:
In one fell swoop Mike defeats all of reddit.
You should've mentioned that insulting a person is _not_ an ad hominem. This needs to be said explicitly because people don't understand it. It's only a fallacy if insult _in place_ of an argument. If you insult _with_ an argument or your insult is actually a valid argument in itself, then it's not an ad hominem.
Good. Someone already explained it. Now I don't need to.
Though I'll add an example, if someone tells you 2+2 is 169 and you say to them "No, it's 4, you moron." then you have not invoked the fallacy. It is in fact 4 and they are indeed a moron.
I've seen people use a kind of meta fallacy where one party calls out the other for using a fallacy and then proceed to disregard everything else they say, no matter if they have a point or not. Most often people will cite Ad Hominem incorrectly just like this, where an insult is made into a fallacy and the argument gets ignored on the basis of this. It makes for a rather strange meta debate that sound more like an argument about Latin.
Sachaztan Interestingly enough, that is a fallacy as well
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
I still believe you shouldn't do that because even if doing so is not fallacious, it is pretty rude.
insults add no truth to your position nor falsity to your opponent's that polite, reasonable debate/discussion can already accomplish. Also, any argument can be made tastefully and politely, even against holders of the most ludicrous or morally outrageous positions. The only "use" it has is to either release frustration at your opponent and their allies or to try to win on the cheap by appealing to traits widely known to inspire petty distaste ("stupidity", "weird", "wimpy", "over-sensitive", the list is endless). As such, it also makes you and people like you look like you have a mere axe to grind.
So it is that any audience enlightenment is so slight or any other benefit gained so trivial, that the need to maintain decorum and politeness is far outweighs the need to paint your opponent in a bad light. All this is why insults are not allowed in polite, formal, reasoned debate - and indeed why debates have moderators in the first place.
Please make more of these kinds of videos, they are fantastic.
Quick, easy to understand, and examples? Why has it taken me this long to understand what this is? I hear this term get used all the time in debates but never really knew what the full thing meant. I considered it a form of dodging a question and in some ways I guess that isn't wrong depending on the situation. Great vid
this is a common one indeed
Yes - very common.
I love you Mike, these fallacy videos are the greatest and most needed things on the internet
I'm impressed that you accurately described the fallacy, but you touched on so little. You made no mention of the guilt by association flavor of argumentum ad hominem OR, my personal favorite, the ad hominem ad hominem.
This argument falls apart when one realizes that holding certain ideas automatically reveals a person as foolish/intellectually inferior/mentally unbalanced, etc. The trick is often used as a final ploy, by a defeated interlocquetor.
I think the Ad Hominem Fallacy is the greatest indication of a person lack of understanding. The worst part is that its used so much in politics. there is probably some correlation between that and all the problems society faces
The biggest problem with people who think they understand this fallacy occurs when they use it in regards to any subjective observation of their character, for example:
Me: You're a fool.
Person: AD HOMINEM!!
This is not Ad Hominem. It is a subjective statement. Not a deductive reason for asserting their position is foolish..
A perfect reply would be:
Me: No, that is not Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem would have been "You're a fool, therefore you're argument is wrong". Me calling you a fool is simply a statement. And using the Ad Hominem fallacy wrong makes you... foolish.
I hate when people get this fallacy wrong, because their thinking is ironically fallacious.
Basically an insult doesn't equal ad hominem
The fallacy I come across the most in internet conversations is the: "who says that? prove it! have you seen it with your own eyes?" argument. On the one hand, it is weakening your position by jamming the discussion with research work. Questioning things which are easy to google (lmgtfy helps). The other part of it is then discrediting any source you use. To point out this fallacy in an argument, you have to really dig deep and talk about how we "know" things in today's society. How something can be plausible and likely, although we haven't seen it with our own eyes. That - under certain circumstances - media can be trusted etc. (just realized - it might be two fallacies, the prove-it fallacy and the do-my-research fallacy).
I run across this all the time. They ask for proof, I provide it, and they pick it apart. I just tell them to do their own research. The bad part is they will only read articles that support their view, while I read articles from everywhere on both sides of the issue. Those are two of their favorites.
This will be the most popular one.
Hugely important point to grasp that too few people seem to:
Someone attacking your character is not itself a fallacy. It is only when this attack on your character is used to dismiss or discredit your argument that the other party is guilty of a fallacy.
Without it, they're just being an ass, which does not discredit their argument, and you claiming otherwise is hilariously you committing the fallacy you are falsely accusing them of.
@0:33 what he says here actually demonstrates that the "ad hominem fallacy" isn't actually a fallacy. fallacies are ALWAYS fallacious. but the ad hominem can sometimes be relevant and therefore part of a valid and/or sound argument. it makes it very different from, say, the genetic fallacy, no true scotsman, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, etc. whose use renders a deductive argument invalid.
Interesting, but there is a fallacy for things like that. The fallacy fallacy is the logic that any argument WITH a fallacy is invalid. Yes, a fallacious argument is faulty. However, that doesn't necessarily make it false.
But what if the behavior of the person is related to his argument? I think this is something that requires a profund analysis, because there are A LOT of arguments that are extremely contraditory depending on the person that's using it.
Just a small point, but I wasn't sent a link to any of your videos. I just searched for examples of fallacious arguments, so that I can try to make sure that I don't - or at least be less likely to - form a fallacious argument myself.
Hahahahahhahahahaha that seedy little bread buttering itself tho!! I had to stop watching for at least five minutes to compose myself😂😂
These vids are just so great! Really well done and the information can be used readily and practically. Making critical thinking skills accessible? Sublime! Keep it up!
Hey,
Thanks for these fallacy videos. They've been useful as a brush up since my days in college :)
Ad hominem is the trademark of mysoginests and narcists. They include your family, friends, and the horse you rode in on.
Logic has always struck me as an inherently fascinating subject, and these videos certainly provide quick and funny hits of it. I do have my doubts as to whether they’ll actually help anyone win an argument. So point out others’ logical fallacies if you must, but bear in mind that you might be the only one who learns anything as a result.
Emotionally driven people frequent the ad hominem approve that rational remain silent or attack their idea if it is of value to them.
I find this fallacy kinda similar to strawman
so when someone shows a bad behavior of one group/person and their opponent justifies it by showing behaviors of another group/person as an argument answer, does this count?
Please do a fallacy video on weak analogy!
Pfft, that's like making a video explaining gay cockatoos!
Did I do it?
Your comment just made my day. xD!!!
The villain did not planned to destroy the world or taking over said world, he just liked to kill people disagreed with him.
Had to rewatch the video because I was just distracted the first time figuring out why you're so familiar 😂😂😂
Was just a little surprised to see you outside Mythology videos 😂
This is a common one on the internet.
Note that, even if the character or actions of the person aren't related to their argument, simply criticizing them isn't fallacious UNLESS that is the main point of your argument.
Saying "You're a hypocrite because X, and your argument is wrong because Y." is not fallacious. At all.
The part that pisses me off is that someone said I was using an "ad hominem" attack when I'm criticizing someone for believing in the fallacious ideals that I'm criticizing and referring to that as an ad hominem. I didn't know what it meant before but now that I do, it still doesn't make sense in that context.
eyyyy I learned like 40 logical fallacies last year!! I feel smart knowing about all these! ;D
This man is the master of fallacy's, sadly not in a way which reflects well on PBS.
I like the appeal to emotion fallacy the best. Can I get a link to that one?
i request further explanation regarding the example of the political ad; isn't choosing a representative about evaluating the candidate's character, empathy, sound reasoning and behavior? at least in part?
I like how the intro is a polite "Hey, stupid, you fucked up."
Thank you for this. I've been sending this baby out on a regular basis.
Thank you very, very much
I am in a Rhetoric class and we are debating if the US ought to prioritize national security over digital privacy. One of the affirmitive arguememnts is that we willingly surrender info to companies like google without really reading the terms and conditions and so should take no issue with agencies taking info. Its nice to have a name to put to how wrong this arguememt is.
Is saying that ones gender in invalidates their opinion about an issue an example of ad-homonem fallacy?
1:41 "girl" bruh i died
This argument easily and wholly encompasses the anti-brony stance, I find haters or even blind argument comments utterly hilarious for this reason and I'm glad I now have a name for this type of argument.
Your Ad guy voice is pretty good
A verey usefull video... I will use this often.
Strawmike = priceless
I learnt what a fallacy was and how many differents types there were when i was i college in france! :)
I love all your videos, have you considered doing a class on philosophy or something for Kahn Academy? I'd watch it.
I want to post this on so many people's facebook wall posts, but I'm too nervous. :(
DO IT
Ad Hominems don't work on me because I can seamlessly incorporate both a defense of my original point and of my character into a single striking rebuttal.
I see this more than any others...
I see this all the time in online discussions, especially when the issue of bigotry comes up. Somebody will say something that, if you're assuming the worst about them, could be interpreted as sexist or racist or homophobic. Then the person with whom they're debating will hold up that line as some kind of triumph, as if by saying that the accused bigot has invalidated every other point they were trying to make.
I miss this Channel.
Isn't Tu Quoque when someone defends an argument by levying the same complaint against a different argument?
I ate a Bartlett pear just now. It wasn't quite ripe, but ripe enough.
Man that straw-thing is freaky.
WOW 🤩 that was so clear and powerful
For example, what a person looks like (the inherent discrimination thereof) negates anything else they do or say.....
Somehow Ted Kaczynski knew rapid mass communication technology would put this all in a blender while we're here trying to unscramble the egg
I'd say that MOST political ads attacking the opponent directly are not actually examples of ad hominem. To me, they usually seem intended to imply that a politician is likely to slack in their duties, ignore the concerns of a large group of their constituents ("taxpayers" is a popular one) in favor of their own interests or those of cronies and lobbyists, renege on campaign promises, and/or just generally take stances you would disagree with on future issues with ethical implications (or, at worst, seem just plain stupid in the eyes of voters who see good character as equating to or stemming from personal competence). These are all relevant concerns for voters, even if the ads themselves may be groundless smears. A public official may have good policies and ideas, but they could still be an embezzler, for example. Character does matter in the case of an election.
Of course, I don't watch much broadcast television anymore. Maybe ads these days really are all about how punching babies negates a person's stance on foreign policy.
I remember in the last UK general election a massive sign went up of the current Prime Minster at the time, Gordon Brown, saying he would raise taxes. It's not directly Ad Hominem, but it was basically a smear campaign by the opposition party.
The idea of “ad hominem” was created as a rhetorical shield to protect the unrighteous from being exposed
Not really ...
I have a feeling I am going to see all these shorter videos on Reddit very soon.
CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. "You're embarrassing yourself", "Don't you come at me with that nonsense", both I saw back-to-back in one discussion the other day. Funny how when it's on a mainstream broadcast, it seems to target conservatives almost every time.
I love how the intro is a nice way of calling out a douchebag who goes around insulting people because they have no argument.
Straw-Mike looks creepy... is this actually your Halloween episode in disguise?
thank you
Great video
Clear as water
If the person is a liar, for example, then this Ad Hominem thing sort of falls apart. The same goes if the person has an extreme left wing or right wing political agenda.
If you call to attention that someone is a liar, you are attacking the ethos of his or her argument. However, some arguments only need logos. For instance, if a psychopath were helping me solve a math problem and proved a mathematical statement, I wouldn't attack the argument for her mathematical conclusion based on the fact that I couldn't trust her. Her logic didn't need any credibility behind it.
Same in politics: a person doesn't have to have the best interest of the people in mind to have the best solution to the problem at hand.
Someone may have already asked this, but did you really eat two Big Macs and drink 34 oz of Hi-C Orange Lavaburst, Mike? No judgement, I swear!
what if one was to use this fallacy to highlight themselves in an argument instead of attacking the person they are arguing with?
is there a fallacy for that scenario?
What you're saying is mostly true, but in politics a person's characters does have a bearing on their candidacy, and therefore their ideas. This has been debated throughout history. Even the Bible addresses this issue in Luke 16:10 and it's good, practical advice regardless of one's religion; "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."
stop! that bread buttering itself... you should give that a pause for processing...
I am currently being Attacked with Ad Hominnems, how do i counter them?
Use adblocker.
Kevin Pham but i need to fight back or else the people on the community will give into the lies and they will think im weak
+The Turbanator tell them the flaws in there argument are so great that they have to insult you to prove their points
Sexual Tyranasaurus they dont care, they just keep on calling me names and when i tell them to debate me in front of everyone then they shy away
The Turbanator explain more
great vid
Alternative Title
Internet in a nutshell.
Explained.
Quite the reverse is true, I've arrived here if my own accord.
cenk ugar basically
Hit the nail on the head. He was using it every ten seconds in his debate against Dinesh D'Souza.
Nathan Applegate D'Souza sucks balls. He's on the level of chenck
I've heard that an insult is not always an ad hominem fallacy. You can insult someone without using that insult as an argument against their atance.
holy fuck if you click on the share button you will see GIF option comes up , youtube actually allows us to create GIFs on here this is the tumblr dream!
obesity isnt just a problem in america... to people not from america, it is just common sense to use the term 'western culture' or '**list of countries/demographic region that includes all that are effected to a notable level**'. i live in the southern hemisphere, and where **all** americans blindly spurt out what season it is and how it should affect me (even though it doesnt because the seasons arent the same), people from other countries, such as the UK, have the common sense to say 'assuming you are in the northern hemisphere', or equivilent. apparently common sense and courtesy stops at american borders...
You make it sound like he said "Obesity is a problem in America and ONLY America" which is completely wrong. He is American, so obviously he'd focus on America with the argument. He never said obesity isn't a problem in other countries. If that offended you, that's your problem, because there is nothing offensive about it and you're pretty much the only one offended. Having to list all the countries affected by whatever you're talking about has nothing to do with common sense or courtesy. In fact it doesn't make any sense at all, since everyone with actual common sense would realize that you never excluded other nations affected, unless you specifically say "only in America." Also, drop that holier-than-thou attitude.
While the context of your statement isn't really related to the video (only slightly on the referenced "example") I'd like to give you perspective of why a lot of American's do this. Being an American myself, and a decently educated one at that, I still find myself making "global assumptions" with a "local mindset". The reason you find a lot of American's do that is due to our culture saturation, we see other cultures as the default, instead of self sustaining entities. We are regionally insensitive (even among our own country, ask someone on the east coast what a company is called and someone on the west coast will tell them they're wrong). We are raised with a very local-centric ideology, which lends it self to our seeming "ignorance". The US borders 2 countries, both of which we know significantly more about than say European countries (or even more rarely, non-Western Europeon countries). This is due to the above stated idea that American's see our own culture as default and thus other cultures aren't as important.
The best ideology I can express it in would be, imagine living on the sun (America) and culture and practices being light, America so aggressively spreads its culture and influence, but we only see it as "normal". We're blinded by the reflection of our own self represented so many other places, that we drown out less bright ideas and cultures. There is representation from this in other cultures that have strong influences, for example Japanese Culture is very aggressive and thus so has impacted a lot of the US. Standing on the sun and looking out at other light sources dampens your clarity on them. Many other cultures have a better picture of their place in the bigger picture of things, less blinded by their own culture, they see the sun, they see the stars (yes I know the Sun is a star), and the moon.
It's hard to explain it, but it is something we are raised with and it's more difficult than you'd imagine to naturally take a different position on things.
***** I live in New Zealand and I agree with you. There are very few people down here that don't know things like the capital of the US and UK, at least a few state names and loads of popular culture things.
Meanwhile most of my friends from america only know about NZ due to LotR and most of my english friends know about it being an old colony, although a few of them know more in both cases of course.
***** I live in New Zealand, and i cannot understand how a whole nation can be so ridiculously disrespectful. firstly, you go out of your way to be different to the commonwealth in petty ways, such as changing spellings because you feel like it, and trying to make every system of measurement different to *literally the rest of the world*, then pass it off as the norm. im not blaming individuals here, as i am required to make generalisations, but the fact that your country assumes that it is the ultimate culture and foundation of the world, even when it isnt, is just disrespectful. even just on youtube, americans never even mention that countries have different time zones, they always base time off of the time zones they are in, whereas the rest of the wold uses GMT, so that easy comparisons an be made. the entire imperial system, fahrenheit temperature measurement, etc, its like you dont even understand how stupid and petty the world thinks you are when reffering to your 'culture'.
another assumption i have noticed that americans make is when they are travelling to other countries. i have never seen an american in new zealand, but i have seen one, or two on my holidays to australia. where a non-american tourist would be like 'wow, your culture is so interesting, and strange to me.' the american attitude seems to be 'wow this culture is so shit! i would hate to live here. america is obviously the only sane culture in the world.' im not saying all americans are like this, but from what i have seen, and from what some of my friends that have been to america have said (they would have gone there and explained things about NZ culture), that seems to be how most americans think, and it is ignorant, close-minded, and disrespectful.
PJemus Eh, I meet plenty of americans where I live, and very few of them are actually like that, although everyone usually holds home higher than strange countries. On the internet though, and youtube in particular especially, a lot of americans are not making their country proud with how they treat others from other nations. I wouldn't judge them all (or even a majority) of them based on internet pricks.
That and don't mistake ignorance for intent.
Edit: and there is a difference in the temperature measurements other than a name, there are some reasons to use the american one, although none making a scientific difference.
is it ad hom if they say what you're saying is stupid but don't give a reason why? or they insult you and say you're wrong but don't address what you are actually saying?
Actually, that's more akin to a strawman.
No, that's an ad lapidem argument.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem
Guilty of this on the daily
I gave here after watching Rfk get this used against him.
Everyone is doing this against him... No one attacks specific things he says.
Can an ad hominem fallacy be when a person has their own argument, before their own argument is addressed, the same person making the argument attacks their opponent calls them out of their names, insulting their intelligence is this an ad hominem fallacy?
Problem with this:
Person A makes a claim about subject X.
Person B is an expert on subject X, and points out that this claim X is wrong.
Person A insists that X is right, without providing any evidence.
Person B reminds A that B is an expert, while A has no actual insight into the topic.
Person A accuses B of "appeal to authority" and "ad hominem".
The problem here is, that A hasn't made any argument to begin with.
Yeah, but neither has person B.
If i was person B, i would find this an opportune moment to teach someone about subject X. However, sometimes people just don't have the time and it's not important. Anyhow, the appeal to authority would be an incorrect label here as well since it doesn't apply to experts in the field being argued about.
UA-cam recommended this video to me, so I guess it thinks I need to learn this information. But I hear UA-cam also pigs out on burgers so what does it know about video recommendations?
Sorted. :D
well i'll probably have to watch this series once a day, i'm pretty sure i used some of these falacies.not this one though... i think
just had a auto play... no I did never have a link...
The Commentary Community in a nutshell
This is Hunter Avallone's favorite logical fallacy
After pawan kalyan speech watching
don't you mean the the 'Donald Trump fallacy'?
Also the, "only thing people say against trump," fallacy
+Brian James lol right because absolutely no one can argue why donald trump's policies are awful -_-
Not saying his policies aren't bad(they are). Just people don't really argue about his policies they just yell: "RACIST SEXIST BIGOT!" And then you ask why and they say: "he's not a good candidate cause he hates all Mexicans and women!"
While I agree that people need to criticise his policies specifically, it's not as if they're really being that unfair when they say that.
yet they never provide any explicit evidence to show this
i think this is mostly used when people are frustrated.
or at the end of an exchange and one side has expended all facts to support their position.
BattousaiHBr They all are to some degree. If people didn't get filled up with emotions, we could always be perfectly rational and reasonable.
Our emotions color everything we do, everything we see, everything we experience. If we believe something to be true, we'll do everything beyond reason to try and make sure others see that same truth. Because doing it within reason is extremely difficult and often requires a lot of hard work.
Not to be confused with the ad homonym fallacy.