Logical Fallacy: loaded questions

"Are you still beating your wife?"

The correct answer to the classic trick question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is 'mu'.

Assuming that you have no wife or you have never beaten your wife, the answer "yes" is wrong because it implies that you used to beat your wife and then stopped, but "no" is worse because it suggests that you have one and are still beating her.

According to various Discordians and Douglas Hofstadter the correct answer is usually "mu", a Japanese word alleged to mean "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions".

The word 'mu' is actually from Chinese, meaning 'nothing'; it is used in mainstream Japanese in that sense. In Chinese it can also mean "have not" (as in "I have not done it", or "lack of", which may or may not be a definite, complete 'nothing').

Native speakers of Japanese do not recognize the Discordian question-denying use, which almost certainly derives from overgeneralization of the answer in the following well-known Rinzai Zen koan:

A monk asked Joshu, "Does a dog have the Buddha nature?" Joshu retorted, "Mu!"

------------------ 

A common way out of this argument is to not respond with a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer, but with a full statement that also includes context. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" would be either
"I have never beaten my wife" or
"I have never had a wife."
This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. 

However, the askers of said questions have learned to get around this tactic by accusing the one who answers with "dodging" the question. A rhetorical question such as "Then please explain, how could I possibly have beaten a wife that I've never had?" can be an effective antidote to this further tactic, placing the burden on the deceptive questioner either to expose his tactic or stop the line of inquiry.

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"

"For how long are we going to tolerate this abuse of power?"

"Why can't you accept these simple facts?"

"What did I do to deserve this abuse...?"

"Why does everyone hate me?"

-------- 

"How am I to get in?" asked Alice again, in a louder tone.
"Are you to get in at all?" said the Footman, "That's the first question, you know."

-- Lewis Carroll

---------

"I recently had the 'pleasure' of being presented with a loaded question:

"When is being true to self a rationalization for stomping all over other people?"

it appeared in a post that in its entirety read:

"Being true to oneself is important. Yes, of course. But there are many ways of being true to self and not all of them are pretty. Dictators are true to themselves, serial killers are true to themselves and so on. When is being true to self a rationalisation for stomping all over other people?"

I responded:

"Did you just suggest that I am dictator-like and serialkiller-like? Inferred from the fact that you use an expression I am the only one using in this thread."

The person attempts to wriggle out of it by saying:

"Not at all, Dov, not at all. I am speaking in general, general principles. Please do not take it personally."

The problem is that by using a variation of my unique phrase: Be true to yourself, the person has de facto made it personal. There are no general principles in sight.

I replied:

"See, in my experience, people who keep telling others that they are assuming things, when they are simply sharing their perspective and their understanding, or feeling about something, which is just as valid as anyone else's, are also going to be dishonest about what they actually meant by what they said, to avoid ending up with egg on their face.

It's all very easy to claim 'general principles', when the innuendo one is making is really very clear. I believe it's called plausible deniability."

and they responded:

"Dov, you are confusing a number of things, but I really don't have time to get into this with you right now.

If you see yourself in the general principles I delineated, well, so be it, hopefully it could be a source of learning for you. I was looking beyond just you, though, as I do not think ad hominem is helpful, and if I used shocking examples of dictators and so on, it was simply an attempt to show the limitations of what I was describing, not calling you names."

I replied:

"Now, it's clear to me that you did intend the comment about dictators and serial killers to target me, along with the part about stomping, you made sure that it would be so by using an expression from one of my posts, the only one containing that expression - the very fact that you are now admitting that you see it as "a source of learning" for me and that not "looking beyond just you" would have been an "ad hominem", (personal attack) proves this. (Your use of Latin here, when you usually speak plain English is very telling, btw - why are you trying to dominate me and control me, ----, through the use of foreign terms?)

You may have been very clever in how you formulated that post,---- - after all you do it all the time, both here in Gaia and in your job. It's just a variation of the technique used to compose 'Company Audits', but that doesn't change the fact that to me it's clear that you targeted me.""

- Dov

3 part Christian videos about logical fallacies

Educating people about logical fallacies and debate techniques is a good thing, reminding people of that everyone can and will use them, at least a couple of times, in their lives, is a good thing, but... the examples are... hilarious :-D So, don't just take what is being said as the truth, because someone made a video of it and I posted it here :-D Take it as an exercise of learning more about logical fallacies

The problem here is that the person making the videos hasn't quite understood what the logical fallacies are and how they work, so his examples are in some cases not good. Nevertheless, they are a base for further discussion

Here are the examples "telemantros" gave in the videos:

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dtNPM-mrA

1. Ad hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument

X: "I believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the Bible, nature and archaeology" 

A: "You are an idiot for believing in myths"

2. Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.

X: "I believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the Bible, nature and archaeology" 

A: "If you don't stop talking about God, you'll be sorry"
B: "Convert or die!"

3. Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.

X: "I believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the Bible, nature and archaeology" 

A: "How could you honestly believe in God if there are starving children in Africa?"

(The correct "appeal to pity" argument here would be "How can you believe in an all-mighty God who allows innocent children suffer?")

4. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

X: "I believe the Bible to be the standard of truth about God's Character" 

A: "Science disproved God long ago, everybody knows that. Why don't you?"

5. Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed

X: "I believe the Bible to be the standard of truth about God's Character" 

A: "Our churches' tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true. This is the way we've always done it, so it is the right way"

6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

X: "I believe in God"
A: "Science disproved God a long time ago. Science is the only way to test claims. Therefore, we know that God does not exist".

7. Circular Argument - see Begging the Question Division - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.

A: "Christianity believes in free will. That means since you are a Christian, you believe in free will."

8. Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

A: "Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact inc ars, it is true in species."

9. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

A: "The Bible we have today is erred. So what had inspiration, the copies or the originals?"

10. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.

X: "I believe in Creation Theory"
A: "That means you are a Christian! Christians are delusional, so you are delusional and I can't talk to you."

11. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.

A: "Mormon Doctrine teaches an illogical chain of infinite past event." 

B: "Mormon Doctrine is not illogical, they don't practice polygamy anymore."

12. Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.

A: "That speaker over there is a Christian... Christians are delusional and illogical."

13. Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.

X: "Jesus fulfilled prophecy hundreds of years after they were foretold. That is evidence of Jesus being God." 

A: "I know there is prophecy in the Bible, but that doesn't answer the problem about all the starving children in the world".

14. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.

A: "That's a straw man argument"
B: "By claiming that I am using a straw man, you are using a straw man."

The problem is that B just made a claim of straw man, yet he feels that his argument is not a straw man. This is a different standard he is applying to A

15. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.

A: "Why would God allow torture of Job? God can't be loving"

This leaves out the end, and main point of the book of Job and does not accurately represent the situation.

16. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property.

A: "The Bible cannot be proven through science and therefore, the Bible is not true"

The problem is that the Bible is a historical document that contains scientific claims, it is not a scientific document.

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPwapBVTcYk 

 

1. appeal to ridicule

Fallacy where ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument"

A: "I believe that God exists"
B: "You can claim God exists all you want, the theistic position is still laughable"

2. hasty generalization

Fallacy where conclusions are reached by using not enough exemplification or when examples are used that are irrelevant and non-representative

A: "Christians can't argue their point because they all rely on blatant lies and fallacies"

3. middle ground

Fallacy in which a middle position is assumed to be correct because it is in-between two extreme positions

A: "Some say that God exists and some say that God does not exist. It seems reasonable to accept the middle position, so it's likely that God exists, but that He is not all powerful, all knowing and omnipresent. That seems fair to both sides."

4. spotlight

When an individual uncritically assumes that members or causes are like those that receive the most attention or coverage on the media.

A: "Hey, Bob, did you know I'm a Christian"
B: "You can't be. I've read about Christians in the Newspaper. They go around protesting funerals because people were killed via punishment from God and you don't do that."

5. factual error

6. argument from ignorance

Fallacy where it is argued that something is true because it has not been proven false, or something is false because it has not been proven true.

A: "God doesn't exist, because you can't prove He does!"
or "God exists, because you can't prove he doesn't"

7. plurium interrogationum

Fallacy where an individual asks for a simple answer to a complex question.

A: "Is the Christian Church unified, yes, or no?"

8. meaningless question

Fallacy in which a question that cannot be asked because it is incompatible with itself, has been asked. The question invalidates itself because one part makes another portion of the question impossible and vice-versa. Meaningless questions are questions that are illogical.

A: "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

9. the masked man fallacy
or Illicit Substitution of Identities

Fallacy where an assumption is made that because something is known under one perspective, it must also be known under a different perspective.

A: "Creationists agree that it is a known fact that changes occur within a species over time, therefore creationists agree that evolution occurs."

10. improper notion of probabilities

Fallacy in which a low probability is used as proof that something could not have happened

"There are hundreds of religions in the world that require faith and each one of them states that it's true. Since it is so unlikely that faith would bring you to the right religion, Christianity cannot be the right religion."

11. false analogy

A false analogy is present any time similarities between objects or events are assumed without proof, just because they are similar in some other way.

"Christianity shares characteristics with Mithran mythology and Mithran mythology is false, therefore Christianity is false."

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbniauQf45k 

 

1. ad hominem tu quoque

Fallacy in which an individual claim is concluded as false because it conflicts with past claims or actions of the one making the original claim.

The fact that a person makes inconsisten claims does not make any particular claim he makes false. Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite, but this does not prove his claims are false.

X: "God's heart is for all people, that's why I help the poor and needy" A: "God doesn't have a heart for anyone, I've never once seen you help anyone other than yourself!"

2. amphiboly

Fallacy in which a premise is used in an argument that is ambiguous because of ungrammatical phrasing and the meaning is not clear.

X: "I know Jesus is God."
A: "Christians shouldn't be allowed to believe in God, it's too dangerous."

This fallacy can be used to confuse or make subconscious implications, intentional or not.

3. anecdotal evidence

Fallacy in which an individual relies on anecdotes to prove their argument.

"I prayed for Jesus to appear to me and he didn't, therefore Jesus does not exist."

It is valid to use experience to illustrate a point, as experience is one of the three methodologies that naturalism uses to illustrate itself (experience, science and logic) but not valid to prove your point.

4. appeal to consequences of a belief

Fallacy in which the consequences of a position proves the position to be true. This line of reasoning is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.

"God is false because accepting that God's existence is false leads to deeper and more free thinking"

5. audiatur et altera pars (hear the other side)

Principle that states that all premises of an argument should be stated explicitly, arguing from assumptions not stated This is not always a strict fallacy per se, but illustrates a principle that is often broken during discussion and should be avoided when possible.

X: "I believe in God".
A: "There is no evidence of God's existence".

"A is guilty of "jumping to conclusions" in regards to what he considers evidence, for the criteria for evidence is an assumption and was not explained"

6. circumstantial ad hominem

Fallacy in which one attacks a claim by asserting that the claim is made out of self interest and is therefore false.

"... a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. while a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own."

A: "The universe began to exist, and therefore has a cause". 

B: "You only believe that because you are a Christian."

7. composition

Fallacy in which a conclusion is drawn about the whole, based on the individual constituents (or parts) within the whole

"Islam and Mormonism are proven false via science, therefore all religions are false."

8. division

Fallacy in which it is inferred that what is true about the whole must also be true about the parts that make up the whole.

"Religion is incoherent, therefore Islam, Christianity and Mormonism are incoherent".

9. genetic fallacy

Fallacy in which a perceived defect in the origin of the claim is taken as evidence that the claim is false.

A: "I believe in Jesus"
B: "People only believe in Jesus out of fear and weakness. Christianity is a crutch."

10. slippery slope

Fallacy in which an assertion is made that if some event occurs then so will another inevitable event without any clarification This sort of reasoning is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitable follow from another without an argument for such a claim.

"If we allow religion back in our schools, my children will be forced to start reading the Bible!"

Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars)

Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, hear the other side. It is most often used to refer to the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against him.

As a logical error, it refers to the fact that people will argue from assumptions which they don't bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It's not a fallacy to fail to state all of your assumptions; however, it's often viewed with suspicion.

The premises of an argument are often introduced with words such as "Assume...", "Since..." and "Because...." It's a good idea to get your opponent to agree with the premises of your argument before proceeding any further.

The word "obviously" should not be used, though. It occasionally gets used to persuade people to accept false statements, rather than admit that they don't understand why something is 'obvious'. So don't be afraid to question statements which people tell you are 'obvious' -- when you've heard the explanation you can always say something like "You're right, now that I think about it that way, it is obvious."

---------------------

Principle that states that all premises of an argument should be stated explicitly, arguing from assumptions not stated This is not always a strict fallacy per se, but illustrates a principle that is often broken during discussion and should be avoided when possible.

X: "I believe in God".
A: "There is no evidence of God's existence".

"A is guilty of "jumping to conclusions" in regards to what he considers evidence, for the criteria for evidence is an assumption and was not explained"

---------------------

Well... it is a generally accepted fact that there is no evidence of God's existence, that you cannot prove God exists nor that God doesn't exist. Accusing "A" of "jumping to conclusions" is like accusing X of "jumping to conclusions" because he doesn't state properly what he means with "God" or "believe".

No...

This is more like some people discussing about an issue, and then someone gets into the discussion, and after a while one of the people in the discussion tells the newcomer that he should be quiet, because he doesn't know what they are talking about, referring to another discussion, that was not in any way or manner mentioned in this discussion earlier.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Pity

Argumentum ad misericordiam - Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy The Galileo Argument

How you feel about someone or something effects your opinion about the someone or something. Nevertheless, it's totally irrelevant to the argument at hands.

"Power of Weak" is an effort to create sympathy to one of the arguers, thus causing the majority to side with the "weak one".

"Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?"

A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life... Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.

Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

"My client is an integral part of this community. If he is sent to prison not only will this city suffer but also he will be most missed by his family. You surely cannot find it in your hearts to reach any other verdict than "not guilty"."

"I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children. If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work. If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death. Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket."

"You guys are young men...are you unemployed? How can you spend so much time refuting an old lady with a bad hip. You both know that from having checked me out last year. I am who I say I am.

I have an excuse to be here. My life has shut down due to age and a disability."

"My life has never, ever been as busy as it is now, and I actually neglect things I need to get done for work and myself to spend as much time on --- as I do. I cannot afford to continue doing this."

This fallacy is also called "the pity card"

One variation of this is "the Galileo Argument"

"Scientists scoffed at Copernicus and Galileo; they laughed at Edison, Tesla and Marconi; they won't give my ideas a fair hearing either. But time will be the judge. I can wait; I am patient; sooner or later science will be forced to admit that all matter is built, not of atoms, but of tiny capsules of TIME."

This includes the idea that the opponent is "suffering for their beliefs". You know "laugh now, but I'll show you!"

"I must be doing something right, or I wouldn't be attracting all this attention from the Big Green Machine."
-- response from a person arguing that there is no global warming, when she is met with opposition

The Galileo Fallacy is often accompanied by the Gadfly Corollary. It goes something like this

"Great thinkers throughout history have make people upset, angry, irritated, or insulted. I make people upset, angry, irritated, or insulted. Therefore, I must be a great thinker."

Whenever someone says, "I'm really getting under people's skin -- I must be doing something right," or, "If people are this pissed off at what I say, then I must be doing my job" -- that's the Gadfly Corollary in action.

-- Greta Christina
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/09/the-galileo-fal.html

Variant of this is when the opposer refuses to answer the questions about their claims because "you're mean, you've hurt my feelings" or because the question is "personal".

Logical Fallacy: Demanding a simple answer to a complex question

This is more a debate trick than logical fallacy.

Q: "Do you think taxes are too high - yes or no?"

When you encounter such a question, you should refuse to try an offer a simplistic answer because you are only likely to run into trouble. Instead, you should insist that the discussion start out more simply.

A: "That depends upon which taxes we are talking about."

Logical Fallacy: Circular reasoning

The best known circular argument is "The Bible is God's Word/inerrant/The Truth, because The Bible says so".

"Free trade will be good for this country. The reason is patently clear. Isn't it obvious that unrestricted commercial relations will bestow on all sections of this nation the benefits which result when there is an unimpeded flow of goods between countries?"

"Paranormal phenomena exist because I have had experiences that can only be described as paranormal."

"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

"I like vanilla ice cream because it's my favorite kind."

"Ralph Nader was the best candidate for president, because he was totally better than any of the others."

"The Cubans wanted Kennedy dead, Oswald was in Cuba, therefore the Cubans hired Oswald."

Tautology is repeating things - "A is --- because A is ---"

"Sheena is a troll so everything she says is trolling"

"You have to follow the law, because it's the law."

Begging the question is related to this

Logical Fallacy: "What sounds good must be true"

Argument By Prestigious Jargon

Also "argument by gibberish" :-D

using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert.

"Fortifying the dextrose coherence leads to applicable inherence of explicable tolerance, therefore, we should not accept this proposal."

Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use"?

"Bad Subjects, both the publication and the electronic mailing list, are certainly not alone in decrying the over-use of jargon and problems associated with 'difficult' 'overly intellectual' or 'obscure' language. In these venues, when jargonistic language isn't exposed as a cover-up for stupidity, or vacuousness, it has been labelled elitist and self-defeating."

-- Bad subjects

Prestigious jargon is not in itself a logical fallacy. Some people really can't express themselves with simple and clear language and some people are so used to use certain words they use them everywhere. 

It is only a fallacy if the speaker chooses words she thinks the opponent doesn't understand, to confuse the opposition, or if difficult words are used to dazzle the opponent or/and the audience, and make the speaker look intelligent and as if she knows what she is talking about.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Because I can say it's stupid, it must be stupid or shortly, it's stupid because I say so.

Ridiculing, belittleing, mocking the argument or the opponent.

"1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"

"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!"

"If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your great great great grandfather was a gorilla!"

"Nobody believes in socialism after college! Grow up!"

"Children shouldn't be given regular hearing tests, because hearing tests are stupid!"

"I imagine that someone like yourself would have no idea about how difficult this actually is."

"Supporting that cause would take several surgical trusses!"

"Those other cars look ridiculous. This is the only man's car here."

"Those clothes would make you look like a overdressed donkey."

Logical fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. The lack of evidence of one argument is taken as evidence of the opposite.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
--Carl Sagan, Astronomer

The problem here is to define where the burden of proof actually rests. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation.

"One is innocent until proven guilty"

In debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team.

In most cases the burden of proof rests on those who initiate a claim or those with an affirmative, positive statement.

Examples of Burden of Proof

Molly: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system." 

Dolly: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury." 

Molly: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Scully: "Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's ridiculous!" 

Mulder: "Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have to accept it as true."

"This is one case where I like to throw my opponent's arguments back at them. If he claims, for example, that the KJV (King James' version of the Bible) is the perfect and inerrant Word of God and challenges me to prove him wrong, I will say something like: "I am God. Prove me wrong." I have been berated for this approach, accused of blasphemy, chided for being stupid, and lamented for having sunk to such depths to make a point, and so forth. But what no KJV-onlyist has yet done, is prove I am not God. So I must be."

-- Xenu

Logical Fallacy: "ad hominem"

The most common fallacy is "ad hominem" or "argumentum ad personam". Someone's opinion, arguments, statements are invalidated because it is that someone stating it.

"As long as you act this way, don't expect anyone to take you seriously."

"I know you are not sincere and are merely trolling."

"No, the only sham is your failed intellect concerning these matters."

"I suspect you simply are spouting things you know nothing about."

"So you are still in denial"

"You don't have a single argument in that post. Nothing but facile, unargued, and incorrect assertions."

"Is that all you can say? More lies and innuendo about my "emoting"?"

"...as always you resort to lying"

"...once again shows our inability to distinguish between..."

"S/he is a professional disrupter."

In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.

Personal attacks can be ad hominem fallacy:

"You can't believe Jack when he says there is a God because he doesn't even have a job."

"Charles Manson wrote this song, so it must be unlistenable".

"Candidate Jane Jones's proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

"What John said should not be believed because he has red hair"

But it doesn't need to be a personal attack. Circumstancial ad hominem fallacy, is when one's arguments are invalidated because the person claiming so is disposed to take that position.

"Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!"

"What do you know about politics? You're too young to vote!"

"Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?"

Ad hominem tu quoque: "you too..."

"So what if I used an ad hominem? You insulted me earlier."

"How can you tell me not to experiment with drugs when you did the same thing as a teenager?"

"Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."

"But you are wearing a leather jacket! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

"I find it amusing and completely predictable that the responses here would be so vitriolic, and really nothing more than personal attacks and more empty assertions."

A reductio ad Hitlerum argument is a special case of an ad hominem argument. If Hitler said it, did it or supported it, it must be wrong, because Hitler was a bad person.

(The same way: reductio ad Nazium)

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

This form of the argument is as follows:

Person A makes claim P.
Group B also make claim P.
Therefore, person A is a member of group B.

Example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist"

This fallacy can also take another form:

Person A makes claim P.
Group B make claims P and Q
Therefore, Person A makes claim Q.

Examples:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you believe in revolution."

A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. 

For example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? Communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you?"

Guilt by association may be combined with ad hominem abusive. For example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false."

-- Wikipedia; Ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem