Ad iram

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning icon orange.svg This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

Ad iram could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric
Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic
Not to be confused with appeal to hate, where someone's prejudice is used to manipulate their opinions.

The argumentum ad iram fallacy (ad iram, Latin for "to anger") is an informal logical fallacy, that involves accusing one's opponent of being angry or holding their beliefs for anger-related reasons, which purportedly disproves their argument or diminishes its weight. It is a form of pathos gambit.


P1: Person A says P.
P2: Person A hates P and/or Q.
C: P is false.


For example:
Theist: My god will judge you for these acts you do!
Atheist: I disagree. I don't believe in God.
Theist: What did God do to you to make you hate Him?

One can easily see the problem here. The atheist does not believe in the deity in question; thus, they cannot hate what they don't believe in (that would be misotheism, not atheism). Also, the atheist could have any reason not to believe in said god; their emotional state doesn't invalidate their claim.

It is also an ad hominem attack and strawman argument that appears often on the Internet; e.g., a person disagrees on a political issue, and one side accuses the other of "being butthurt" and "crying like a little baby", even when no emotion was exhibited by the accused. It also applies to the idea that, if a person doesn't agree with a system, they should "get out" and find a country that agrees with a strawman idea of what the dissenter believes, e.g. "Go back to Russia!".

See also[edit]