Subscription pricing
Philosopher: You’re an idiot. Even if we care about nature, banning fossil fuels would lead to massive deforestation as manufacturers turn to biofuels as a substitute. So we shouldn’t listen to your smooth-brained policy proposal.
Environmentalist: Ad hominem! Ad hominem! And you call yourself a philosopher.
Philosopher: No. I didn’t commit the ad hominem fallacy.
Environmentalist: But you insulted me and said I was wrong.
Philosopher: No, no, my illogical friend. There’s nuance to this. We commit the ad hominem fallacy when we attack the source of a claim as support for why that claim is wrong.
For example -
You smell like a cesspit. So, we shouldn’t listen to you when you tell us to use eco-friendly soap.
Here, I’m citing to your stench as a reason to reject your recommendation. But the idea that we should use eco-friendly soap should be evaluated on its own merit. What are the pros and cons of eco-friendly soap? That’s what we should consider, not your distasteful body odor. That’s why this argument commits an ad hominem fallacy.
However, consider my original statements.
You’re an idiot. Even if we care about nature, banning fossil fuels would lead to massive deforestation as manufacturers turn to biofuels as a substitute. So we shouldn’t listen to your smooth-brained policy proposal.
Notice that even though I am calling you an idiot, and even though I label your proposal as smooth-brained, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t listen to you because you’re a smooth-brained idiot. I rely instead on the effects of banning fossil fuels to support my conclusion. My comments on your lack of intelligence are simply fun add-ons that don’t play a logical role in my argument. So I’m not committing the ad hominem fallacy.
Environmentalist: Interesting. I think I get it.
Philosopher: Let me give you another example.
Environmentalist: Thanks, but I’m pretty sure I und–
Philosopher: You’re a stinky, mouth-breathing dunce. Ad hominem?
Environmentalist: …Yes?
Philosopher: Ha! Trick question – it wasn’t even an argument. So calling the claim logically flawed wouldn’t even make sense.
Environmentalist: I see. Well, I have to get–
Philosopher: If I had said, for example, that we shouldn’t listen to you because you’re a stinky, mouth-breathing loser and nobody likes you, then that would have been an ad hominem fallacy.
Environmentalist: Thanks, I got it.
Philosopher: You’re welcome, you foul-smelling fool. Not ad hominem!
2
2 comments
Just wanted to write to express my gratitude that you kind folks offer so much to us not so affluent folk.
Very kind of you.
Also my apologies if I objected to any style of delivery in the past (I have edited my comments.). If I have ever been as impolite as the esteemed philosopher I would like to apologize & say that it usually emanates from trauma in our lives & years of misfortunes (which individually may not be much but in the absence of love, abundance & support can be as painful and sensitive as the pain & sensitivity of a victim of water drop torture).
Everyone is doing a great job & I certainly hope I am not as unkind as the gentleman philosopher depicted in this passage. If any are so insulting & verbally abusive then they need hugs, love, right guidance, a good environment, a holy spirit & forgiveness.
Also I texted a friend to ask if I ever suffer from body odors & he verified that I do not (since I shower twice a day & use other sanitary measures along with my copious use of perfumes & air fresheners), by God's grace (which was a relief). If anyone does feel that way about me then kindly do inform me (ever so gently preferably) so I may improve myself.
Lastly I hope all peoples who suffer from mouth breathing & are not as smart are healed. Mouth breathing & odors & even mental in-acuity are a medical condition & may be healed/ loved/ treated accordingly I suppose. Most people who breathe from their mouths or are odoriferous are usually suffering from poverty or oppression of some kind or the other (neglect & lack of love & financial worries).-Hope all are delivered & are smart & sweet smelling & beautiful & rightly guided so we may better love one another.
p.s. also I love the environment & I hope we never use our faculties & abilities to advance incorrectness. However if any are doing so they are likely victims of their misguidance (since being misguided and wrongs are inherently a punishment for the misguided & wrong-doer).
Well said. I have fallen for that trap once or twice- seeing an insult of some sort and immediately choosing the answer containing something about ad hominem. Nice and easy distinction to make once you know about it!