This ongoing discussion of what constitutes an ad hominem argument is all very well, but I'd like to point out that I didn't make an ad hominem argument or assertion. I simply asked a question. On another note, Fred, perhaps I'm in the minority here for not having yet read the novels you refer to, or watched any film adaptations. But if the best argument you can think of is based on fiction (which is to say, argumentum ad exemplum, quoting a sermon to support a moral point) and giving away the plot, do at least have the courtesy to prefix it with a warning saying SPOILER ALERT. Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) [fred@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 24 February 2014 22:43 To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Ad hominems (was: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face discussions) On Feb 24, 2014, at 12:14 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_.) > >> Ad Hominem is a perfectly valid argument against claims of fact when made >> against the authority making the claim. "PT Barnum is a notorious liar' is >> a perfectly valid argument against a claim PT Barnum is making about having >> found a mermaid. > > I think this is only sort of true. I think the context is relevant here. In a court of law, discrediting a witness is, as you note, a counter-argument to the train of argument being made by the side s/he is a witness for. In the book/movie "the girl who kicked the hornet's nest", Lisbet is brought up on charges that are not only untrue but are in fact an ad hominem on charges she is bringing. She demonstrates the factuality of her statements from records, and demonstrates that her opponents cannot do the same, and in fact have criminal reasons to have her viewpoint suppressed. Yes, she demonstrates that one is a pornographer and another is a murderer, and 12 people are taken into custody as a result of her testimony and pre-trial activities. While it is an attack on a person, it is demonstrating criminal intent and behavior. In an IETF meeting, we are not discussing criminal matters; we are discussing ideas. Even if the party proposing an idea were a criminal, his or her criminal nature would be irrelevant to the idea - it might or might not be a good one. So from my perspective, I would agree with your opening statement. Ad Hominum arguments have no place in our process.