Editing Ad hominem (section)

=== Circumstantial ===
{{Main|Bulverism}}
Circumstantial {{lang|la|ad hominem}}' points out that someone is in circumstances (for instance, their job, wealth, property, or relations) such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the [[bias]] of a source. As with other types of the argument, the circumstantial {{lang|la|ad hominem}} could be fallacious or not. It could be fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument invalid; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). But it also may be a sound argument, if the premises are correct and the bias is relevant to the argument.{{sfnm|1a1=Walton|1y=1998|1pp=18–21|2a1=Wrisley|2y=2019|2pp=77–78}}

A simple example is: a father may tell his daughter not to start smoking because she will damage her health, and she may point out that he is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that smoking might cause various diseases. Her father's inconsistency is not a proper reason to reject his claim.{{sfn|Walton|2001|p=211}}

Douglas N. Walton, philosopher and pundit on informal fallacies, argues that a circumstantial {{lang|la|ad hominem}} argument can be non-fallacious. This could be the case when someone (A) attacks the personality of another person (B), making an argument (a) while the personality of B is relevant to argument ''a'', i.e. B talks as an [[authority figure]]. To illustrate this reasoning, Walton gives the example of a witness at a trial: if he had been caught lying and cheating in his own life, should the jury take his word for granted? No, according to Walton.{{sfn|Walton|2001|p=213}}