Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,561
edits
Ad Hominem: Difference between revisions
→Looks like this fallacy but is not
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (trope->useful notes) |
|||
Line 35:
{{quote|"I studied law at Harvard, and I can see that this law is clearly unconstitutional."
"You studied law at Harvard, but you never got a degree." }}
** The validity of this counterargument can be summarized thusly: "[[Appeal to Authority#Irrelevant Authority|your credentials aren't as impressive as you say]], so you're going to have to prove that rather than tell us to take your word for it."
----
== Circumstantial ad hominem ==
When the circumstances of the arguer are held to affect the truth of the argument. It's frequently rolled out against people who have any kind of motive for making their argument (the "he ''would'' say that, wouldn't he?" defense), often intended to imply that "he" is an incredibly selfish/malicious person for even looking at the idea with an open mind. In reality, it's more unreasonable to expect someone to have ''no'' reason to hold their viewpoint; their vested interest may be a reason to do a somewhat more thorough testing of their claim (as they are admittedly not an objective observer) but does not ''automatically'' invalidate their criticism.
| |||