AD-HOMINEM

AD HOMINEM
1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation:
\(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
New Latin, literally, to the person
Date:
1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
................

Ad hominem tu quoque


Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: "You too!") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way.

Examples:
"You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well."
"He says we shouldn't enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves"

................................
Guilt by association
Main article: Association fallacy

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

This form of the argument is as follows:
Source A makes claim P.
Group B also make claim P.
Therefore, source A is a member of group B.

Example:
"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist"

This fallacy can also take another form:
Source A makes claim P.
Group B make claims P and Q
Therefore, Source A makes claim Q.

Examples:
"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you believe in revolution."

A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. For example:
"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? Communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you?"

Guilt by association may be combined with ad hominem abusive. For example:
"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false."

A reductio ad Hitlerum argument can be seen as an example of a "guilt by association" fallacy, since it attacks a viewpoint simply because it was supposedly espoused by Adolf Hitler, as if it is impossible that such a man could have held any viewpoint that is correct.


Those who wanted to involve in politics, better do


sssooong itu neutral sebenarnya...