argumentum ad hominem "You Do It Too" Illogical arguments explained
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 96
argumentum ad hominem "You Too" Illogical arguments explained
Hello All,
I want to give back. I need logic to understand my feelings. I am probably rational to a fault. I found the following information. It makes me feel better because I now understand my boyfriend is using false logic to accuse me of "also having a drinking problem" to deflect and deny his. I told him yesterday, we are breaking up until he stops.
Thank you so very much!
giz
Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.
Positive arguments to the person are discussed under appeal to authority.
Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.
Usage
An ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong purely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect.
Conversely, not all ad hominem attacks are insulting. "Paula says it is impossible to murder a man, but this is false because Paula never loses her temper."
SubtypesThree traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.
Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that--usually, anyway--insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions.
An example: "Jack is wrong when he says there is no God because he is a convicted felon."
Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way.
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
It is important to note that the above argument is not irrational, although it is not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
Ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a claim is dismissed either because it is inconsistent with other claims that the claimant is making or because it is inconsistent with the claimant's actions.
"You say airplanes fly because of physics, but this is false because you said earlier airplanes fly because of magic."
A retort accusing one's accuser of the same offense.
The argument tries to support a position by showing that its shortcomings are shared by an opposing position. In effect, the argument says, "My position may be bad, but you should accept it because my opponent's position is just as bad."
I want to give back. I need logic to understand my feelings. I am probably rational to a fault. I found the following information. It makes me feel better because I now understand my boyfriend is using false logic to accuse me of "also having a drinking problem" to deflect and deny his. I told him yesterday, we are breaking up until he stops.
Thank you so very much!
giz
Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.
Positive arguments to the person are discussed under appeal to authority.
Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.
Usage
An ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong purely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect.
Conversely, not all ad hominem attacks are insulting. "Paula says it is impossible to murder a man, but this is false because Paula never loses her temper."
SubtypesThree traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.
Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that--usually, anyway--insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions.
An example: "Jack is wrong when he says there is no God because he is a convicted felon."
Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way.
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
It is important to note that the above argument is not irrational, although it is not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
Ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a claim is dismissed either because it is inconsistent with other claims that the claimant is making or because it is inconsistent with the claimant's actions.
"You say airplanes fly because of physics, but this is false because you said earlier airplanes fly because of magic."
A retort accusing one's accuser of the same offense.
The argument tries to support a position by showing that its shortcomings are shared by an opposing position. In effect, the argument says, "My position may be bad, but you should accept it because my opponent's position is just as bad."
Last edited by giz; 07-03-2004 at 09:33 PM. Reason: adding to title
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,955
Oh, this is nothing new to me.
If I had a dollar for every time Spicoli threw the phrase "false logic" at me in an arguement, I would be independently wealthy right now.
Thing is, I wasn't the one spewing the false logic.
But I'm sure it made him feel better to say that.
If I had a dollar for every time Spicoli threw the phrase "false logic" at me in an arguement, I would be independently wealthy right now.
Thing is, I wasn't the one spewing the false logic.
But I'm sure it made him feel better to say that.
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,636
..and the best defense (or at least a defense that might sometimes work well) might very well be a good offense, but in this case, I think giz's point would be that offenses of this particular type are not good and why..and, of course, it does take two, but for some of us it helps us not to get into being the second one if we have a clear understanding of exactly what we're dealing with and exactly why it's pointless to got there.....
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 96
I guess my thing is I think a mediation/argument/discussion should have a beginning, middle and end.
State the problem, how you felt, other person acknowledges, other person shares ideas and feelings about subject, at this time you may now discuss each other's feelings, time to decide on a solution or plan of action, RESOLVED (or at least until it's time to revisit)
By my boyfriend doing the above "You Do it Too" he is not acknowledging the issue so we can continue.
Person 1 "Can you clean up in the bedroom this weekend?"
Person 2 "Why should I? You haven't cleaned the kitchen"
Person 1 "I was really worried when you didn't come home until sometime after 2. I wish you would have called"
Person 2 "You don't call every time you're out late."
On, and on it can go.....accomplishing nothing
It does not make his action of getting really drunk okay.
Two wrongs don't ever make a right.
State the problem, how you felt, other person acknowledges, other person shares ideas and feelings about subject, at this time you may now discuss each other's feelings, time to decide on a solution or plan of action, RESOLVED (or at least until it's time to revisit)
By my boyfriend doing the above "You Do it Too" he is not acknowledging the issue so we can continue.
Person 1 "Can you clean up in the bedroom this weekend?"
Person 2 "Why should I? You haven't cleaned the kitchen"
Person 1 "I was really worried when you didn't come home until sometime after 2. I wish you would have called"
Person 2 "You don't call every time you're out late."
On, and on it can go.....accomplishing nothing
It does not make his action of getting really drunk okay.
Two wrongs don't ever make a right.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Star's Hollow
Posts: 615
giz -
I completely understand the frustration. I too am logical to a fault. How frustrating to try to apply logic to this situation.
I've come to the conclusion that my H doesn't want to "resolve" the problem. He knows what the resolution is and he refuses to go there. Deflection and denial are his methods of self-preservation.
Logic dictates that trying to involve a person in the solution of a problem that they deny exists is illogical.
L
I completely understand the frustration. I too am logical to a fault. How frustrating to try to apply logic to this situation.
I've come to the conclusion that my H doesn't want to "resolve" the problem. He knows what the resolution is and he refuses to go there. Deflection and denial are his methods of self-preservation.
Logic dictates that trying to involve a person in the solution of a problem that they deny exists is illogical.
L
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 103
WOW!! In my house its the "blame game" ......carry's out the same way....except they dont' rememeber when you do ALL the cleaning, washing, taking care of the kids etc.....but when they do it they need to have contiune recognition or they pout becasue "I don't care and dont' appreciate" WHATEVER!!
hang in there~
hang in there~
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 96
Well, I am happy to say that we had another talk where we discussed this unfair fighting technique. He acknowledged it (at the beginning of our relationship, we talked about ground rules for fair fighting) so we are working on the SAME TEAM.
Sober City rocks!
giz
Sober City rocks!
giz
Paused
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 3
I have had a similar discussion with my BF.
Ugh! It's so annoying when he does that. One time in particular stands out...we were getting ready for something-or-other and he comes up to the bedroom to find me frantically getting ready. I had spent most of the time he was getting ready cleaning up after him (he has probably never washed a dish in life and I hate carpenter ants which, coincidently love dirty dishes). So, he asks what's taking me so long and we have an arguement. I tell him I'm rushing because I was picking up after him all morning. He rebuts with asking if I remember the time I came home and dropped stuff in front of the door after he cleaned. I got so mad that I finally said - what the hell does me dropping my stuff in front of the door 2 weeks ago after you cleaned have to do with how I'm not feeling too appreciated right now? Then I added, that if he wanted to have a discussion about my dropping stuff in front of the door, I would be happy to do that another time. He didn't expect that one. If only that worked every time!
Ugh! It's so annoying when he does that. One time in particular stands out...we were getting ready for something-or-other and he comes up to the bedroom to find me frantically getting ready. I had spent most of the time he was getting ready cleaning up after him (he has probably never washed a dish in life and I hate carpenter ants which, coincidently love dirty dishes). So, he asks what's taking me so long and we have an arguement. I tell him I'm rushing because I was picking up after him all morning. He rebuts with asking if I remember the time I came home and dropped stuff in front of the door after he cleaned. I got so mad that I finally said - what the hell does me dropping my stuff in front of the door 2 weeks ago after you cleaned have to do with how I'm not feeling too appreciated right now? Then I added, that if he wanted to have a discussion about my dropping stuff in front of the door, I would be happy to do that another time. He didn't expect that one. If only that worked every time!
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by lax
I got so mad that I finally said - what the hell does me dropping my stuff in front of the door 2 weeks ago after you cleaned have to do with how I'm not feeling too appreciated right now? Then I added, that if he wanted to have a discussion about my dropping stuff in front of the door, I would be happy to do that another time. He didn't expect that one. If only that worked every time!
giz
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
