Question about Bulverism and Circumstantial Ad Hominem
When learning about both of these fallacies, I understand the meaning but when I take a look at the examples, I cant help but notice that all of the examples are just Circumstantial Ad Hominem.
Example:
argument: Women should have equal rights.
Circumstantial : You are only saying that because you are a woman.
Bulverism: You are only saying that because you are a woman.
Noticed how most examples online is like this, the same format.
From what I understand:
Circumstantial: claiming the arguer is biased to dismiss or de legitimize the argument.
Bulverism: assume the argument is wrong. Then, explain why the arguer believes it.
So as I think the Circumstantial example is fits the meaning. The bulverism example? not so much.
What I think the bulverism example should be like:
You are wrong because you are a woman.
What do u think?