A user box I created is a form of ad hominem. Even so, I think it shows that ad hominems are not always bad. HeartOfGold 15:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
- So where'd d'ya get that logic? Let's examine the argument.
- Gun control favoured by totalitarians is true you say. We'll return to this statement.
- This is an ad hominem statement.
- Synthesis = this is an example of a good ad hominem statement.
Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely. - It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A. Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
Just wanted to say what an excellent, concise article this is. Well done, chaps :D Underscoreb 23:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Strong Character = Strong Argument
Apologies for the intrusion, but am I reading the second paragraph of the non-fallacious uses section correctly? It seems to indicate that correctness stems not from the strength of the argument, but from the person arguing it.
This seems to indicate, for example, that if a Christian tells you the sky is blue, he must be right, but if an Atheist says it, he must be wrong. Is that the correct interpretation of this verse? CCalloway 22:46, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- Nice try, CCalloway. What it says is, atheists and liberals are incapable of presenting argument because they are basically deceitful, and intellectual discussion cannot be had with dishonest or immoral people. That is called a truism. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:58, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- I see. So, by virtue of being an atheist or liberal, one's arguments are automatically incorrect? CCalloway 23:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- It matters not if they are, or aren't. There is no logical point in having a discussion with them, sans morality on their part. Atheists are truly just the walking dead, CCalloway, to put it very bluntly. They have no standards of honesty or truth, and most liberals and atheists are deceitful. More to the point, the liberals practice deceit in denying their morality isn't open to question, and using the dodge of "ad hominem attack" to cut off that line of questioning. To a conservative, to a Christian, that dog doesn't hunt. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there, TK. There are both deceivers and honourable men on both sides. There are folks like you on both sides, as well. CCalloway 00:09, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
Well, we will then agree to disagree, CCalloway. However, this is a conservative encyclopedia, Christian friendly one, and that is what conservatives believe. Christians as well, eschew moral relativism. Morals, Character and Faith matter. --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:59, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
- No one here is saying that morals, character, and faith do not matter, nor is anyone saying that moral relativism is correct. I am merely saying that an argument's strength is determined by the argument, not the speaker. Do you disagree? CCalloway 10:08, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
Delete Non-fallacious Uses section?
IMHO, this section needs to be deleted. It's not only hypocritical and false, it's also (ironically enough) one of the worst uses of argumentum ad hominem I've ever seen. At the very least, it needs reformatted. Joseph Kony advocates worshipping Christ, and using the logic in that section, his (supposed) love of Christ would be bad, and (so it is implied) anyone else who loves Christ would be immoral, as well. On the other hand, you could easily dismiss a schizophrenic's argument that bugs are crawling over him, you, and the walls and burrowing inside everything. In short, bad character doesn't automatically make ones argument worthless, but mental disorders do (or should, IMO). Kicple 10:45, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
- Well, it's been almost a month with no reply. Either no one cares, or no one has seen this. Either way, I'm going to go ahead and take it down. Kicple 10:06, 3 May 2012 (EDT)