How is "ad hominem" a fallacy...

How is "ad hominem" a fallacy? Why should I even entertain an argument from a hypocrite or objectionable person who probably has an ulterior motive?

Attached: 1604341043482.jpg (1024x684, 57.09K)

>why should i
no one cares
arguing with people is gay and boring
just be alone

You don't seem to understand what a "fallacy" is. You could be totally right to just throw ad hominem at somebody, but you're not arguing against their position by doing so.

A hypocrite and an objectionable person with ulterior motives can still be right and you be wrong. That's why it's a fallacy, retard.

If the worst hypocritical obese pedophile terrorist with BO and shitty teeth had discovered the Pythagorean theorem it would still be true.

Triangle poster strikes again. You obsessed madman. WE DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR GODDAMN 180 DEGREES YOU AUTIST.

The only way the fallacy of "ad hominem" exists is thus
>"You are an Italian and everyone knows Italians are greasy, so your argument is wrong"
THAT is the ad hominem fallacy
This?
>"No, that is not the definition of 'pickle' you fucking idiot
not a fallacy
>"You have contradicted yourself 3 times, you are obviously a troll"
not an ad hominem

>If the worst hypocritical obese pedophile terrorist with BO and shitty teeth had discovered the Pythagorean theorem it would still be true.
when dealing with forensic facts or important arguments then ad hominem should not be entertained. the facts should be focused etc

however if i am discussing how best to run the united states i dont think i want to hear from a first generation immigrated ethnic. that's ad hominem too, though, isn't it?

or, discussing why women are whores and how to improve the situation, i dont want to hear from a roasty. she cannot offer anything. but "muh ad hominem".

consider killing yourself. "fallacies" are not "rules" or "facts" but human opinions on good conduct. they are shit and full of holes

If the principles of their argument contradict one another then say that, that is not ad hominem it is a reasonable rebuttal. Accusing your opponent of hypocrisy and explaining how they are hypocritical can be a valid counterargument, especially if you are arguing about something like ethics.
If you just find somebody "objectionable" or dismiss their argument despite not finding any flaws in it then you are refusing to adopt a position which might be more logically sound than your own simply because you dislike the person saying it or the way it was presented. In this case, your refusal to engage in discussion might be an excuse for you to cling to unexamined or self contradictory beliefs, and by refusing to engage in the conversation you are preventing yourself from developing more realistic views. Additionally, you might be able to make them a better person by convincing them that their positions are unreasonable and that yours do not contain the contradictions that theirs do. By avoiding the real discussion you would not only be missing out on an opportunity to grow, you would be missing out on an opportunity to improve the lives of others if your beliefs are genuinely superior.