The Courtier’s Reply fallacy involves responding to an argument or criticism by saying that the critic has not provided enough information or evidence to support their claims, while at the same time refusing to provide any additional information or evidence oneself. Here’s an example: Person A: “I’m concerned about the safety of this new product […]

The Appeal to Accomplishment is a type of fallacy that involves using someone’s past achievements or credentials as evidence for their current argument or claim. This fallacy assumes that because someone has accomplished great things in the past, their current opinions or arguments must be correct. When someone commits the Appeal to Accomplishment fallacy, they […]

The Appeal to Authority is a type of fallacy that involves using the opinion or endorsement of an authority figure as evidence for an argument or claim. This fallacy assumes that because an expert or authority figure says something, it must be true. When someone commits the Appeal to Authority fallacy, they attempt to bolster […]

The Traitorous Critic fallacy is a type of ad hominem attack that involves dismissing or discrediting someone’s criticism by accusing them of being a “traitor” to their own group, community, or identity. This fallacy assumes that loyalty and commitment to one’s own group are the primary criteria for evaluating an individual’s opinions and criticisms. When […]

The Tone Policing fallacy is a type of informal fallacy that involves dismissing or criticizing an opponent’s argument based on their tone, language, or emotional expression, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. When someone commits the Tone Policing fallacy, they attempt to discredit an opponent’s viewpoint by attacking their communication style, claiming […]

The Appeal to Motive fallacy is a type of ad hominem argument that involves dismissing an opponent’s argument by attributing a perceived ulterior motive or personal interest. This fallacy assumes that because someone may have a particular motivation or stake in an issue, their argument must be invalid or biased. When someone commits the Appeal […]

The Poisoning the Well fallacy is a type of ad hominem fallacy that involves discrediting an opponent’s argument by associating it with unpopular, untrustworthy, or odious groups, individuals, or ideologies. This fallacy aims to discredit the entire argument or perspective by linking it to something deemed unacceptable or reprehensible. When someone commits the Poisoning the […]

The Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy is a type of argumentative fallacy that involves attacking an opponent’s character or circumstances rather than addressing the substance of their argument. It occurswhen someone attempts to discredit an opposing viewpoint by pointing out circumstances about the person making the argument, such as their job, social status, financial situation, or […]

Types of Ad Hominem Attacks There are several forms of Ad Hominem attacks, including: Examples of the Ad Hominem Fallacy Here are a few examples: The Problem with Ad Hominem Attacks Ad Hominem attacks are problematic because they: Countering the Ad Hominem Fallacy To counter Ad Hominem attacks:

The statement “You can commit injustice by doing nothing” suggests that inaction, indifference, or a lack ofengagement can be just as problematic as actively perpetuating harm. This phrase highlights the idea that our choices, including our decision to do nothing, have consequences that can impact others and contribute to systemic injustices. This quote is often […]