Changes

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music.  It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment.  But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music.

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music.  It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment.  But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music.

== Ad Hominem Arguments Are Not Always Fallacious ==

==Examples of non-ad hominem arguments==

* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness.  Again, however, this is not technically an ''ad hominem'' argument.

* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness.  Again, however, this is not technically an ''ad hominem'' argument.

* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are [[moral relativism|moral relativists.]] Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].

* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are [[moral relativism|moral relativists.]] Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].