In this argument, the commentator is arguing that the man stating the argument wears leather shoes. He isn’t focusing on his argument alone; instead he’s criticizing his appearance. Yes, there is an ironic situation for the one speaking is wearing leather which comes from cows, but that still isn’t a right way to approach a decision whether what is being stated is legitimate by noticing appearance. With this type of fallacy, everything is done to attack the speaker, thus ignoring what they are explaining. This type of fallacy is the Ad Hominem fallacy. Truly, with this fallacy it is taken very personal for what is commentated by the listener can be quite distracting. For example, in the example given, the criticizer is making the speaker’s argument weak by attacking the fact that the man is “false”. That possibly isn’t the case for we don’t know the full story of his appearance. But for this type of fallacy it doesn’t matter for the purpose of this attempt is to distract the reader away from the speaker’s reasons, thus making their own attempts successful on catching your attention which leads to not believing what the speaker says for their credit is lowered.
This fallacy can be seen as a personal attack for emotions, physical appearance, beliefs, ect, and it can be seen as an attack, purposely made for the speaker, thus making him vulnerable. This vulnerability can be ghastly for it can distract the readers away from the reasons, thus cause an illegitimate conclusion on whether to accept or discredit what is trying to be portrayed.
No comments:
Post a Comment