>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > "Tez" <email@example.com> wrote: > >> An ad hominem fallacy is of the form: >> >> Person P made argument A >> >> Person P is ignorant/poor/gay/female/stupid/handicapped/etc >> >> Therefore argument A is invalid. >> >> >> It is *not* ad hominem to say: >> >> Person Q made argument B >> >> Argument B is incoherent/lacks reasoning/lacks evidence/is purely >> assertion/is muddled/makes categorical errors/equivocates/is >> nonsense/is irrelevant/etc >> >> Therefore person Q is ignorant/poorly >> read/uninformed/unreasonable/stupid/irrelevant/etc >> >> >> Sure, such a statement may be insulting. But it isn't invalid. > >I accept that my use of the phrase, "ad hominem," was inaccurate. >I don't know what the correct term is for the fallacy of rebutting >someone's argument by calling it "bullshit" and "crank babble."
Probably more along the lines of reactionary and irrelvant.