Statement #o1 Discussion

Below is the statement as it appears with the fallacy marked as correct. You can see the totals of most frequent responses to this statement. And after reading the any discussion going on below, you can select your choice(s) for the correct answer. For now, whoever posts each statement can update corrections.

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Ad Hominem
AKA Ad Hominem Abusive, Personal Attack
Category: Fallacies of Relevance (Red Herrings) → Ad hominems (Genetic Fallacies)

Translated from Latin to English, "ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Ad Hominem

1,291 Total Answer Attempts 49%
636 Correctly Popped Fallacies
655 Incorrectly Un/Popped

Example from LaBossiere's Forty Two Fallacies

( Random Image )

Most Common Responses

636 - Ad Hominem
83 - Guilt by Association
52 - Circumstantial Ad Hominem
46 - Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
44 - Biased Generalization
39 - Personal Attack
36 - Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief
26 - Hasty Generalization
26 - Appeal to Ridicule
25 - Poisoning the Well
22 - Appeal to Spite
21 - Genetic Fallacy
20 - Appeal to Belief
19 - Appeal to Common Practice
17 - Red Herring
17 - Fallacy of Division
17 - Relativist Fallacy
15 - Appeal to Authority
14 - Appeal to Tradition
11 - Fallacy of Composition
10 - False Dilemma
9 - Burden of Proof
9 - Appeal to Popularity
9 - Confusing Cause and Effect
9 - Begging the Question
8 - Post Hoc
7 - Ignoring a Common Cause
7 - Slippery Slope
6 - Special Pleading
5 - Appeal to Flattery
4 - Appeal to Fear
4 - Peer Pressure
4 - Middle Ground
4 - Misleading Vividness
4 - Appeal to Pity
3 - Appeal to Emotion
3 - Appeal to Novelty

Likes for Correct Answers

Show all on page ↑

Warning: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/c07/h02/mnt/113648/domains/dontfallacy.me/html/discuss-threader.php on line 249

1 Thread with 3 Comments

Show All Comments On One Page
Threads Sorted by Date - Sort by Likes

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

I thought the answer was circumstantial ad hominem, because he happens to be a priest, his arguments are wrong.

10.20.15 20:43 by terabyter9000

+ Reply 2 comments downstream. Please read them before replying.

I built this site to help myself train on logical fallacies, and am no expert, but think you make a VERY good point. And it also seems that site users are tending not to get this one correct. Do you think I should disable this example by Dr. LaBossiere, since it probably is more of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem? Thanks so much!

10.22.15 09:15 by wikiworldorder

+ Reply

It would have been Circumstantial Ad Eminem if Dave disliked Bill on him being a priest, and so was countering him by considering him vile for that reason. It would have been Ad-Hominem if Dave counter argued by attacking the character of bill. That depends on how much ill-will you read into the phrase 'lackey of the pope', which may necessarily be so. There needs to be contempt or derision for ad-hominem. I think it is a Genetic fallacy/fallacy of origins/attack on the bias of a source, because from the given reading, Dave may be chill with Bill despite him being a priest, but he does not agree with him because with reference to the topic of the argument abortions, he thinks priests are biased. The fallacy committed by Dave is to think the Bill's argument is wrong only because of the speculation of Bill's bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy Genetic Fallacy is not listed in the original 42 labossiere

5.29.17 21:52 by hgkamath

+ Reply

Play Game - Fallacy List - Add Statements - Player Collections - Discussions

Login - High Scores - About - Trivium - Links - Contact

Donate To DontFallacy.Me - Support Dr. Labossiere

Creative Commons, 2014, Wiki World Order (Morgan Lesko)

* Fallacious statements are usually paired with a random image of a person who never spoke those words.
This free site is for educational purposes, studying intellectual dishonesty. The images are being used under fair use. Sunflower by robstephaustrali. Judge Jeanine Pirro image owned by FOX.