informal logical fallacies is the general idea. the thing in particular that makes an ad hominem fallacy fallacious is that you're making a logical leap form "tim is a doodoo head" to "tim's argument is invalid". or the reverse for appeal to authority, the leap is from somebody being your boss or a celebrity to them being correct or trustworthy, and it's (platonically, there are quacks and frauds of course) not fallacious to take medical advice from a doctor.

[–] happybadger@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Say Tim is a fascist. The argument is wrong because he's a fascist and I can recognise that at a larger ontological level. My response is "Tim, you're a doodoo head and I'm not going to bother with you." Is that still fallacious in that I'm making a leap from a logos argument to a pathos one which shuts down the entire debate for the purpose of attacking him? To me it's fallacious even if I'm right because I'm going against the spirit of jerking each other off in a debate where two mutually-exclusive ideas are valid. I just embrace the fallacy because dada.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 15 points 1 week ago

The argument is wrong because he's a fascist

gonna stop here, the argument isn't wrong because he's ideologically a fascist. the argument is wrong because of whatever lie he's telling.

anyway calling fash a shithead and not engaging isn't an error of logic in any way, it's just good sense in a situation where you can't punch or shoot him.