- Joined
- Feb 28, 2014
- Messages
- 5,016
- Points
- 0
2) The Ad Hominem Fallacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg
Ad Hominem is latin for “to the man” and is, in my opinion, the most toxic form of argument there is. The Ad Hominem fallacy is a form of argument where the opposing party attacks a person’s character rather than the argument. It forces the presenter to defend his character rather than the argument which he is presenting.Example:
Person A: Looking at the History and current Science of Cannabis, I believe we must re-look into our drug policies. There are reports that Cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and even have medicinal value that could solve a lot of our medical issues in Singapore. We must have a scientific enquiry to look into Cannabis and not base our facts on old opinions.
There is also the argument about personal rights. Should the government have the power to decide on what a person can and cannot put into his own body?
Person B: Why you asking all this? This guy must be a drug addict the say he tries to argue for drugs.
I do not need to explain the complexity of the global Cannabis opinion. There are numerous reports on beneficial medical value of the Cannabis plant, several conflicting reports on the safety of the Cannabis plant and several countries recognizing that Cannabis should not be illegal.
Person A has presented that there are legitimate argument to re-look into our cannabis laws based in old and new evidence regarding the plant. However, Person B chose to ignore all this fact to turn the argument about Person A’s character. Is Person A really taking drugs? Do you think his words can be trusted? Etc[SUP][/SUP]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg
Ad Hominem is latin for “to the man” and is, in my opinion, the most toxic form of argument there is. The Ad Hominem fallacy is a form of argument where the opposing party attacks a person’s character rather than the argument. It forces the presenter to defend his character rather than the argument which he is presenting.Example:
Person A: Looking at the History and current Science of Cannabis, I believe we must re-look into our drug policies. There are reports that Cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and even have medicinal value that could solve a lot of our medical issues in Singapore. We must have a scientific enquiry to look into Cannabis and not base our facts on old opinions.
There is also the argument about personal rights. Should the government have the power to decide on what a person can and cannot put into his own body?
Person B: Why you asking all this? This guy must be a drug addict the say he tries to argue for drugs.
I do not need to explain the complexity of the global Cannabis opinion. There are numerous reports on beneficial medical value of the Cannabis plant, several conflicting reports on the safety of the Cannabis plant and several countries recognizing that Cannabis should not be illegal.
Person A has presented that there are legitimate argument to re-look into our cannabis laws based in old and new evidence regarding the plant. However, Person B chose to ignore all this fact to turn the argument about Person A’s character. Is Person A really taking drugs? Do you think his words can be trusted? Etc[SUP][/SUP]
