Stack Exchange
open access
CC BY-SA
Why do they say I am committing a fallacy when I am just insulting someone?
On the internet, one is often accused of committing the so-called 'ad hominem'-fallacy, which, according to Wikipedia, is defined as a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself I find this a bit strange. No, when I — say — call somebody "an idiot", I am not necessarily doing it as part of some clever "argumentative strategy" with the ultimate end goal of changing the topic or otherwise diminishing the arguments offered with irrelevant distracting comments. No, I am calling them an idiot because that's... just my bloody opinion. And opinions are what one shares (along with arguments) in a discussion. So why do people accuse me of committing a logical fallacy? In fact, are they not the ones committing a non-sequitur fallacy, as it does not follow from me making an insult that the insult was specifically made in a strategic attempt to discredit their argument? Basically, my question is, why do people assume that any insult is an ad-hominem fallacy, when, according to the definition, only certain insults are ad-hominem fallacies. The two examples below should demonstrate this distinction. It is fairly obvious which one is a fallacy and which one is an opinion. Discussion A Person A: Smoking is healthy because my doctor says so. Person B: You're a bloody idiot. Discussion B Person A: Smoking is unhealthy because my doctor says so. Person B: You're a bloody idiot. Therefore, we can safely assume your argument to be wrong. Clearly, only person B in discussion B is committing the ad-hominem fallacy. The other person B is just giving their opinion. And yet, you will find that most people on the internet will describe both responses as ad-hominems. Why is this? Is my definition of the fallacy wrong? What's going on here?
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- The Epistemology of Anger in Argumentation#740842
- A Multi-Level Examination of How Hostility Unfolds During Online Argumentation#120254
- Domain Violations: A Systematic Taxonomy of Fallacies#113354
- Bridging the Divide: Using LLMs to Reshape Difficult Disagreements#71473
- The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language#750227
Record · ID 787604
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive