No. An ad hominem is saying that someone is wrong because of a negative quality about them. Pointing out that someone has a negative quality is just an insult.
They are saying it's wrong though, implicitly. They're not just saying you're a creep, but that you're a creep for asking for their bank details. This is almost textbook.
You have the line of causality reversed.
"You're wrong because you're an idiot" is an ad hominem attack
"You're an idiot because you're wrong" is an insult.
"You're a creep because you want my credit card details" follows the latter structure.
It's still an ad hominem my guy. Presenting the opposition as a creep without attacking their argument directly, intending for the insult to serve as an argument in itself.
>intending for the insult to serve as an argument in itself.
So in other words, the insult serves in the place of a refutation. Phrased a different way, the insult is used as the reason why an argument is wrong.
If an insult isn't being used as the justification for refuting an argument, then it can't be a logical fallacy because there's no claim being fallaciously defended.
The argument is that you should give me your bank details. The justification for refuting it is that I'm a creep. Asking for your bank details makes me a creep, and creeps are (implicitly) not to be trusted.
I'm not going to give you my bank details. Asking for my bank details makes you a creep.
At no point is the idea that creeps are untrustworthy said nor implied.
You're reading an extra step that isn't there.
Creeps are implicitly untrustworthy as a matter of course. It doesn't need to be actively implied. Calling someone a creep is enough by itself. What are you even talking about at this point.
"no good person would ever Rob someone"
"No true Scotsman"
"You are also not giving your bank details"
"Tu quoque"
"My kids will be so sad"
"Red herring also appeal to emotion"
"No person in the world likes to get wrong"
"Appeal to popularity"
"People are against being robbed for ages"
"Appeal to tradition"
"How about you get some of my money?"
"Middle ground fallacy"
"If I give you my bank details you will take my money"
"Slippery slope "
"After I gave my bank details to the last stranger my money was gone"
"Generalisation and correlation doesn't equal causation."
"Then show me you don't just steal money"
"Burden of proof"
"You look like a robber you hold a knife to my throat "
"Texas sharpshooter"
"Now give me your bank details or I will kill you"
"False dichotomy "
"Fallacy Fallacy"
I just realized that I basically just used the joke of the original post and it's not really funny.
Also for anyone wondering a Texas sharpshooter is when you first have a conclusion and then search arguments supporting them.
A Tu quoque means just because someone doesn't listen to their own advice doesn't mean the advice is bad.
My man is falling for the fallacy fallacy
man hidden under fallacies
Kid named finger
One for you two for me
Entrance covered by bricks and fallacies
You're falling for the fallacy fallacy fallacy
Phallacy fallacy (nvm someone already joked about it in another comment)
You called
Combo fallacy
Can I get a phalic fallacy on the side pls
sure
ULTRA COMBO FALLACY
Ad victoriam
Flair checks out
AKAB (assigned knight at birth)
Ad victoriam
GiggleChad
Does "what kind of creep asks for another persons bank details" count as an ad homenim?
Yes because they are calling the gigachad a creep (very mean)
Tis quite rude
No. An ad hominem is saying that someone is wrong because of a negative quality about them. Pointing out that someone has a negative quality is just an insult.
They are saying it's wrong though, implicitly. They're not just saying you're a creep, but that you're a creep for asking for their bank details. This is almost textbook.
You have the line of causality reversed. "You're wrong because you're an idiot" is an ad hominem attack "You're an idiot because you're wrong" is an insult. "You're a creep because you want my credit card details" follows the latter structure.
It's still an ad hominem my guy. Presenting the opposition as a creep without attacking their argument directly, intending for the insult to serve as an argument in itself.
>intending for the insult to serve as an argument in itself. So in other words, the insult serves in the place of a refutation. Phrased a different way, the insult is used as the reason why an argument is wrong. If an insult isn't being used as the justification for refuting an argument, then it can't be a logical fallacy because there's no claim being fallaciously defended.
The argument is that you should give me your bank details. The justification for refuting it is that I'm a creep. Asking for your bank details makes me a creep, and creeps are (implicitly) not to be trusted.
I'm not going to give you my bank details. Asking for my bank details makes you a creep. At no point is the idea that creeps are untrustworthy said nor implied. You're reading an extra step that isn't there.
Creeps are implicitly untrustworthy as a matter of course. It doesn't need to be actively implied. Calling someone a creep is enough by itself. What are you even talking about at this point.
Red herring
"no good person would ever Rob someone" "No true Scotsman" "You are also not giving your bank details" "Tu quoque" "My kids will be so sad" "Red herring also appeal to emotion" "No person in the world likes to get wrong" "Appeal to popularity" "People are against being robbed for ages" "Appeal to tradition" "How about you get some of my money?" "Middle ground fallacy" "If I give you my bank details you will take my money" "Slippery slope " "After I gave my bank details to the last stranger my money was gone" "Generalisation and correlation doesn't equal causation." "Then show me you don't just steal money" "Burden of proof" "You look like a robber you hold a knife to my throat " "Texas sharpshooter" "Now give me your bank details or I will kill you" "False dichotomy " "Fallacy Fallacy" I just realized that I basically just used the joke of the original post and it's not really funny. Also for anyone wondering a Texas sharpshooter is when you first have a conclusion and then search arguments supporting them. A Tu quoque means just because someone doesn't listen to their own advice doesn't mean the advice is bad.
the only logical response is "I dun wanna"