Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for “you also”) is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke’s 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1] “Whataboutism” is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique.
and what does this have to do with this article anyway?
That’s a whole lot of words for “Oh waaaaaaaaaaah, I’m getting called a hypocrite for bearing the water of hypocrites”; and uh-- how’d you put it, exactly? Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.
I’ve consistently been making the same point while you’ve been trying to derail it with irrelevant nonsense because evidently only thing you know how to do is to try and change the subject when you’re losing the argument.
If you actually cared about your time you wouldn’t have made 50 vapid comments in this thread. And once again, every source is biased because humans have biases inherent in their world view. Saying that a source is biased is completely meaningless. All that says is that you are unable to argue against biases different from your own.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).
makes it a competition
Ad hominem
Straw man
Moving the Goalposts
Whataboutism
Tu quoque
and what does this have to do with this article anyway?
Listing logical fallacies as if that were an argument is, funnily, a fallacy.
“i know your are but what am i?” is not an effective form of argument.
That’s a whole lot of words for “Oh waaaaaaaaaaah, I’m getting called a hypocrite for bearing the water of hypocrites”; and uh-- how’d you put it, exactly? Facts don’t care about your feelings.
“nut-uh!” is not an effective form or argument.
Thank you for providing us with a summary of logical fallacies you like to use. Would you like to comment on the content of the article now?
“i know you are but what am i?” is not much of an argument.
Would you like to comment on the content of the article now?
interesting how you keep changing the subject whenever you’re losing the argument.
Winning an argument is done with facts, not with linking random wikipedia articles.
Moving the Goalposts
Linking random wikipedia articles
congratulations on identifying wikipedia articles
I’m doing no such thing. My original reply was:
I’ve consistently been making the same point while you’ve been trying to derail it with irrelevant nonsense because evidently only thing you know how to do is to try and change the subject when you’re losing the argument.
i prefer not to waste my time on speculation from biased sources.
If you actually cared about your time you wouldn’t have made 50 vapid comments in this thread. And once again, every source is biased because humans have biases inherent in their world view. Saying that a source is biased is completely meaningless. All that says is that you are unable to argue against biases different from your own.
Whataboutism
Please don’t change your pfp, it’s a perfect representation of your role on lemmy.
Linking Wikipedia articles of logical fallacies as an argument, this really is the one true Reddit replacement.