On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 02:37:13PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Could we have an RFC to explain what is and what is not a valid ad-hominem
> argument?
There are no valid _ad hominem_ arguments. _Ad hominem_ is a short
name of a fallacious form or reasoning where one attacks the person
making the argument _instead of_ attacking the argument as such.
(More fully, of course, it's known as _argumentum ad hominem_.)
My point is that since it seems that almost nobody who asserts ad hominem gets it right people should instead say 'thats rude' or 'thats exclusionary'. It is of course perfectly valid from a logical point of view to ask what the experience of someone is before they make organizational proposals but it is still bloody rude.
As my old headmaster (an alum of Bletchley Park) used to say Latin argumentum semper in fraudes.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/