Talk:Argumentum ad hominem
The person who posted this article probably is a malodorous pervert, second class :: it's wrong. CЯacke® 13:00, 26 June 2007 (CDT) (malodorous pervert first class)
- I used to think I understood this, until I read this article. Could someone de-Terista this article? Also are there any circumstances which it is expectable? I thought a logical fallacy should never be used. - π 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering whether anyone else thought it might be funny to reference that one meme in the header:"I asked 100 women about the shampoo they were using; the number one answer was "What the hell are you doing in my shower?" Or is not not funny or applicable?--Asklepius (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 Argumentum ad emotinum
The introduction says:
- It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal."
 To add or not to add
I want to add the following, not sure if I should. Thoughts?
"=Here at RationWiki=
We use ad hominems all the time! Usually they are of the following form:
- User1: I make Claim A, bringing in Source X
- User2: Source X has been created by a confirmed crank, therefore it's not a valid claim
Technically, a person being a crank doesn't prove their point wrong. However, it's important to understand that the world of logic and meatspace are two different worlds. Logical fallacies are often useful heuristics. The fact that a person is a crank may not be proof that what they say is wrong, but it's good evidence that it's far more likely to be wrong. We pitiful humans do not have infinite time to address every little minute detail of every claim, so we need a way of dividing things into categories for making decisions. Every minute spent debunking bullshit is a minute we don't have for more important stuff, like, I don't know, something. Thus, the heuristics." CorruptUser (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 Terrible example
I am removing the terrible example on this page specifically because neither premise 1 nor premise 3 is mentioned explicitly or implicitly in David Futrelle's reasoning. His first sentence "of course not" refers to his not being against "men having rights" and the rest of the excerpt list his reasons for opposing the Men's Rights Movement, without commenting at all on the truth value of the "claim that men's rights are neglected, mocked". Withoutaname (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)