Gonzo of the Gonzolog has a nice post up concerning the logical fallacy of “appeal to ridicule”, which has been defined as “a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an argument”. You should go read the whole thing, but I just want to make one point of my own.
The thing about appeal to ridicule and ad hominem is that they are both thrown around indiscriminately and incorrectly by dumbfucks who don’t like it when people mock them for being dumbfucks. If you are a ridiculous fucking idiot and I ridicule you for being a ridiculous idiot, that is neither appeal to ridicule or ad hominem.
It is only appeal to ridicule or ad hominem if we are engaged in argument and I argue that *because* you are a ridiculous fucking idiot, your assertions must be false. If we are not engaged in argument, and I mock you for being a ridiculous dumbfuck merely because it amuses me to make fun of you for being a ridiculous dumbfuck, then there is no ad hominem or appeal to ridicule fallacy.
And one last thing: just because *you* claim we are engaged in argument, doesn’t mean we are. Dumbfucks spouting gibberish and then petulantly stamping their feet and demanding “rational argument” and “reasoned responses” frequently deserve nothing but mockery. This is especially the case when *you* approach *me* and start spouting dumbfuck gibberish.