I recently viewed a post that featured Dana White of the UFC and Mel Gibson encouraging viewers to see the movie Sound of Freedom (the movie is based on a true story about child sex trafficking). In addition to encouraging folks to watch the movie, both White and Gibson encouraged viewers to take a stand against this horrific criminal industry.
The first response to this post had nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. It was a comment recounting some of the reported past misdeeds of White and Gibson. The commenter asserted that since these men had been involved in controversial acts in the past, their opinions should be disregarded. He was implying that until a person with a more (seemingly) virtuous past presents (the same?) message, no one should listen to White and Gibson.
This is an example of an ad hominem attack.
The ad hominem means “against the man.” It is an argumentation fallacy that occurs when a person attacks the messenger and ignores (or deliberately draws attention away from) the message.
In short, this fallacy is a cheap shot that degrades any debate or discussion to base name-calling.
Unfortunately, this tactic is a common way of derailing critical and rational evaluation of ideas. We like to believe that we’re good at critical thinking, but unfortunately, the ad hominem is as popular and effective as ever.
In this instance, does the source change the validity of the message?
Let’s look at the message of the video:
“Child sex trafficking should be stopped.”
Do you agree with this message? I’m guessing you do…
Let’s look at some theoretical proponents of this message:
Ted Bundy: “Child sex trafficking should be stopped.”
Joe Biden: “Child sex trafficking should be stopped.”
Donald Trump: “Child sex trafficking should be stopped.”
Gandhi: “Child sex trafficking should be stopped.”
Mother Teresa: “Child sex trafficking should be stopped.”
I hope that for you the message was not any more or less valid regardless of who expressed it.
Should we consider the source?
Yes, but assessing the message itself is much more vital.
Next time you hear name-calling during a debate, slow down and do some critical thinking. Don’t be swayed by the ad hominem. Instead, evaluate the message based on its own merits.
The very best to you.