Ad Hominem: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
{{examples}} |
{{examples}} |
||
* This is a favorite tactic of politicians who want to discredit an opponent; they usually call it "flip-flopping" or "waffling" and use it to imply that the opponent can't make up their mind. |
* This is a favorite tactic of politicians who want to discredit an opponent; they usually call it "flip-flopping" or "waffling" and use it to imply that the opponent can't make up their mind. |
||
** It is, however, a valid form of criticism when the topic is 'Can we actually trust this politician to follow through on their campaign promise, or will they change their mind once they get elected?' or similar. At that point, a review of the politician's past history re: consistency (or lack thereof) when it comes to advocating for political positions is clearly on-topic. |
|||
* A german politican once said 'I don't care about the shit I said last week!' |
* A german politican once said 'I don't care about the shit I said last week!' |
||
* A common version used against complaints is for a debater to bring up a separate event which they feel their opponent ''should'' have had the same reaction to; the "where were you when..." argument is always invalid. Whether the opponent should have been equally outraged at another event has no effect on whether their outrage at ''this'' event is valid. |
* A common version used against complaints is for a debater to bring up a separate event which they feel their opponent ''should'' have had the same reaction to; the "where were you when..." argument is always invalid. Whether the opponent should have been equally outraged at another event has no effect on whether their outrage at ''this'' event is valid. |
||
| Line 97: | Line 98: | ||
* When the speaker is arguing that the opponent is treating something as ''uniquely'' wrong, yet has done the same thing themselves. For example, if a boy is sent to his room for being the only person in his house to ever raid the biscuit tin, it would not be fallacious for him to point out that he did it because he saw his father doing it, therefore it is not valid to punish him on that basis. |
* When the speaker is arguing that the opponent is treating something as ''uniquely'' wrong, yet has done the same thing themselves. For example, if a boy is sent to his room for being the only person in his house to ever raid the biscuit tin, it would not be fallacious for him to point out that he did it because he saw his father doing it, therefore it is not valid to punish him on that basis. |
||
---- |
---- |
||
== Style Over Substance == |
== Style Over Substance == |
||
'''Also called:''' |
'''Also called:''' |
||