James Files ad hominem route incoming! Oh wait this is 3 years old

Exactly. I love when I’m arguing with someone on line and my autocorrect chooses the wrong spelling of “there” and they used that mistake (even if it was a direct spelling error on my part) as proof my conclusions are wrong

Pretty good video. I don’t know your political leanings and I can see you were trying to make the video neutral so as to not distract the viewer from its overall point, but I think a controversial topic would have drove the point home better. For example: a pro-life person says, “abortion is wrong because it takes a human life and is therefore murder.” A pro choice person says, “it’s interesting how pro-life people (usually Republicans) want to take away a woman’s right to choose, but don’t want to provide her with the social welfare programs she’ll need to raise it.” This seems like a classic and very common example of an ad hominem argument. Regardless, of how a person feels about abortion, this argument does not directly counter or address the claim that abortion takes a human life. Your thoughts?

Marc Johnson hi 👋🏽 I think the example you have given is definitely a fallacy ( and this is coming from a pro-choice person who finds it irritating when other people-choice people make this point!) but I think it’s a straw man fallacy as the pro-choice person is attacking an argument that the pro-like person didn’t even make.

El M thank you for the respectful reply. I like it when people who disagree on major issues can have civilized conversations, especially on line! Yes, indeed! You are right and I stand corrected! This is more of a strawmen tactic than ad homoin. I think I originally felt it was AH because you’re essentially attacking the person, calling them a hypocrite, but yes, you’re right. This fits the definition of straw man far better...

E Edo I strongly agree and wish others did too. Even if we all disagree on other things, it would be alot simpler if most people agreed on this one thing.

E Edo Yes you are correct the lack of critical thinking /logic and intellectual honesty is the biggest problem on the earth. Imo there are too many beliefs which stops progression so we stagnate. Because once you believe something you stop looking further and when someone shows you proof/evidence that goes against your beliefs your cognitive dissonance kicks in

Nah i use this lesson to attack and bully people on debate. Or use this to win debate with fallacy argument

It's because most of the world is uneducated and don't have access to education(which in some countries, is by design), so they don't have a solid foundation upon which to base their judgments to begin with. That's why spreading education and buildings schools around the world should be a collective priority.

I dont't think so because you're a dumbass

there are videos about more fallacies in the channel. you can find the playlist

yeah and next evil person reference, try using Stalin.

Yeah but but Jimmy guys that take photos of themselves with no shirt on are untrustworthy!

in most cases this is an authority fallacy

+quint0sh My slave is an awesome guy?

Well thats how world works

Indeed!

Can you shorten this to 2 sentences, in big words, plastered on top of a picture? My reddit-sized attention span is too short to comfortably watch this.

Reddit is even worse now. The top-rated argumentative posts rely on ad hominem far more often than not.

And Twitter tbh

TZO2K15 ? These fallacies are just as prevalent in conversations outside the internet. I don't see why a conversation taking place on the internet in some form would make it more prone to fallacies.

Lmaooo

ooooohoooooh

Almost onomatopoeic

Some people, if not most identify with their beliefs 😉 by not agreing they feel personally attacked.

Something fantastic!

Peter Waters I was thinking the same thing. All of this seemed pretty obvious. :/

It's completely obvious, but also probably the most commonly used bad argument.

I didn't learn about fallacies until sophomore year of college. Not saying I hadn't come to some conclusions on my own, but still, it was never discussed with me.

Philosophy is sometimes about dissociating oneself from common knowledge and trying to examine "common sense" to understand why people think the way we do. It's also important to remember that understanding a fallacy on some level does not necessarily make one impervious to that fallacy. This fallacy is, in a sense, an appeal to emotion, and emotions can be tricky little things that influence our views against our will and without our knowledge. Never think that you've surpassed the value of a lesson. Nobody's impervious to fault, even very simple faults.

Indeed, this is just common sense.

Thanks!

Thanks! Really appreciate that. Comments like these keep us going!

I think it is too common.

jeremy robinsonartist 100%, because none of us are Spock(and even Spock held some illogical positions IMO)

Usually they are recognized as their own form of fallacy, the names were even given in this video, but when you look at it, they do more or less all fall under the umbrella of Ad-Hominem.

So if the premise is his traits, then you are also technically attacking the premise. Therefore it's not a fallacy.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the inferences people draw from witness statements take the form 'Witness A is credible, so what he says must be true' -- in which case discrediting them is simply negating the premise, making the argument unsound. IMV it's not fallacious to attack someone's credibility as a refutation of an argument *from* credibility.

Your comment seems to have gone south. No hominem. :)

Phoenix33 Nice name

Omsim! Toxic Filipino culture na nga. Hopefully di na manahin ito ng susunod na henerasyon

@@evilyugi2 I felt pity on our Filipino youth and children kasi maabsorb nila itong mentality

We encounter it very often, just like the equivocation fallacy.

Yes. Always argue the point made never attack the person. When you attack the person, you’ve already lost.

in your first example, it's okay to argue that the man in the fortress is a hypocrite, but, if you argue because he's a hypocrite that letting in illegal immigrants isn't okay, there entails ad homonin.

+james roper basically, even if someone is unjustified in a belief, that doesn't mean they're wrong

james roper There is no right or wrong but asking others to do things even you don't/can't practice is hypocrisy and your opinion means nothing in that case. nothing shows how unreasonable and unrealistic an ideology is when even its most hardcore advocates can't achieve it. That is why the liberals love to condemn known devout Christians when they do things against what they preach like Palin's daughter or Josh Duggar. Does showing people a few corrupted Christians proves Christians are all bad? No, but the left loves to do that.

The man might live in the fortress for a reason that doesn't involve illegal immigrants. Maybe he's afraid of zombie apocalypses, the government, or his paranoid neighbor Jeff, but is willing to share his fortress with a family of illegals.

foxymetroid The simplest explanation is that the man living in a fortress is afraid of sharing his home and belongings with strangers and would like some privacy and live with his loved one only, he doesn't want his children to be exposed to the potential dangerous associated with people with unknown origins, but he is advocating Americans and Europeans to share our home with everyone else in the world.

nom nom

I was gonna say this. It isn't an ad hominem to call your opponent a dumbass (even though it's incredibly rude and unprofessional jargon), nor is it to call someone out based on little to no credibility on the argued topic.

Actually, A betterbad hominem would be to say "Yeah, well, you're stupid"

+Marvel Hasiholan You'd better not if they are not willing to listen. Recognizing fallacies are tools for personal assessment of arguments. Many people might agree or not agree with your tools of assessing arguments. I know many (including myself) otherwise intelligent people who hold some stupid beliefs in certain circumstances. They don't want to assess their beliefs in that circumstance the way they normally assess their beliefs. Just spot the fallacy and move on. And stop taking them seriously on that special point. If they asked why you got detached explain to them the fallacy that you spotted.

because being right is more important than doing the right thing. Being right is more important that being truthful. And maintaining the moral high ground is more important than being humble in defeat.

It's late but *hypocrisy

share how you would explain it?