Ad Hominem: Difference between revisions
→Tu quoque ("You, too!")
Line 80:
{{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.
** 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, for the same reason that a person's credit history might be ad hominem if brought up against them in a debate, but is most certainly ''not'' ad hominem when they are being evaluated for a loan application.
* 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.
| |||