Ad iram
Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric |
Key articles |
General logic |
Bad logic |
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.
Form[edit]
- P1: Person A says P.
- P2: Person A hates P and/or Q.
- C: P is false.
Examples[edit]
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!".