I don't care if that was
a case of the ad hominem fallacy.
Not exact matches
A little tidbit just in
case someone should feel that an
Ad Hominem Attack is waranted: I am a Veteran
of the United States Armed Forces and I WILL defend this country to the death.
The Cruise attack, on the other hand, exemplifies «poisoning the well,» another brand
of ad hominem attacks in which the character assault is launched before the listener has a chance to form his or her own opinion on a subject — in this
case, Cruise's film.
Writing with vitriolic flair (when deserved) is one thing, but
ad hominem attacks
of that sort make clear that the critic's chief interest is really himself, which shouldn't be the
case.
I know that the «Kyoto will only do so little» argument can be stretched too far, to the point
of suggesting climate action won't do anything in any
case, and I do see your viewpoint there (though I think you do needlessly brush an
ad hominem in the process
of stating that viewpoint).
Having neatly forestalled accusations
of argumentum
ad hominem, Mr. Scadden reverses Mr. Carson's transparently rhetorical offensive, focusing on Carson's irrational adherence to a failed
case.
The criticism
of ad hominem attacks would be apropriate in normal circumstances but, in this
case, the head
of the IPCC started it with his flat earth denunciation.
Either the IPCC defenders make the same objections you have, in which
case the criticism boomerangs on them big time, or the IPCCers try to argue from authority /
ad hominem, which just drags them down further into the swamp
of non-credibility.
Ad hominem attacks on your interlocutors are especially amusing when you then make a fool
of yourself in similar vein (or perhaps vain in your
case).
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).