MasochisticAvenger said:
Also, when you don't agree to someone's bashing, and they turn around and accuse you of being a fanboy.
Well, the second one's Ad Hominem- Argument to the person. It's when someone uses an unrelated fact, often insulting, embarrassing or derogatory in nature, to attempt to dismiss an argument based on the person who's giving it.
For example: Loonyyy's wrong because he's fat. Or, MasochisticAvenger is a fanboy, we can't take him seriously!
Even fanboys are right. Occassionally.
Res Plus said:
Surely if you are talking about a subject where the person's character, or an aspect therefore, is relevant then any criticisim of their character would form part of the main argument and thus not be ad hominem. Ad hominem is criticism of a person's character in a way unrelated to the content of the arguement isn't it? I could be wrong.
Unfortunately, you're mistaken. While the criticism of a person's character may indeed inform WHY they came to a conclusion, and is very useful, or their motives, it doesn't say anything about the logical validity of premises or conclusions of their argument.
Unrelated is witness testimony: Witnesses aren't making a logical argument based on evidence, they're recounting personal events. If they're not reliable, their account isn't reliable. But it's not to do with dismissing their argument based on reliability, it's to do with dismissing the premise of their testimony, because it's not certain, and arguments are only true when the premises are.
I can say "You hate Gay Marriage because you're a fundamentalist Christian, and not worth listening to" till I'm blue in the face, but that doesn't address their argument or their position, it just attempts to discredit them by insinuating that they're narrow-minded bigots enforcing their views on others. They may be. That's not why they're wrong.
Anything you use to draw a conclusion about their argument unrelated to their argument tends to be either a non-sequitur (Does Not Follow) or ad hom.
I think I'm going to throw in with Misplaced Burden of Proof. Most simply put: "Prove me wrong". I've seen it time and time again, especially when talking about things which have a long history and appealing to their antiquity, if we decide it may be problematic and should be considered (Guns), or is unfair (Gay Rights or Women's Rights), or that a something exists (God), then suddenly it becomes "Prove that we shouldn't have guns (When an equal case can be made for asking why we should have guns-especially when people start saying that we can't compare things, therefore there can be no case [This goes both ways-Australians can't go-"you can't prove guns are good", and Americans can't go-"you can't prove guns are bad"])" or, "Prove that Gays deserve the same rights that we already have (Here's where the misplaced burden is: There never was any proof given to justify the rights enjoyed by the others, they're arguing against everyone's rights without that condition)", or "You can't prove that God doesn't exist, ergo you have as much faith as I do in an unproven statement." (Which is just stupid on the face of it).
It's a tricky one, but it almost always obviously obtuse arguing, and it gets to me. People would rather tell me to justify the negative of their extraodinary claims, than prove them.