What do you call an argument (or statement) that is an example of the very thing it seeks to refute.

For example: "Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards. Therefore, they are invalid."

See here for more hilarious (well, funny) examples.

For the time being, I have borrowed autologica: the word for words like "word" from another thread.

It reminds me of an aporia, such as: "All written statements are false" (which, ex hypothesi, etc.) but seems to want its own Latinate sesquipedalianism.

I posted.
I Googled.
I trawled through Silva Rhetoricæ.
I (yes Dale) OneLooked.

There's just no word for it for this particular rhetorical hypocrisy.

What on earth am I going to do?

I guess if the need arises I'll just have to (gasp!) describe the concept in plain English!

How about a coined term: a prima facie fallacy?

[quote=Hydra]What do you call an argument (or statement) that is an example of the very thing it seeks to refute.

'Fishing'. I prefer 'angling', but most moderators take the lower road.

For example: If a guy argues that the USA should place claymoor mines in proximity with a border fence (as many, many, have argued), one could fish that statement; pretending to agree with that scenario, and ask, " Can I be the guy to hose the fence down the next morning?"

However, a true angler would reason that this is a great opportunity to harvest fresh placebo for medical research.

Re: Fishing.

Sure. If the speaker is aware of the hypocrisy. That would be an example of Socratic irony. And the " tools of scoundrels and blackguards" example would be a witty rebuttal of an ad hominem argument.

I would like to know more about the "tools of scoundrels and blackguards"......., according to Hydra. Is there a code of ethics?
Has it ever been an effective tool?

It does require the user, at the very least, to have slept with the boors. No?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but I suspect you are either a genius or an imbecile.