Does the new ad hom rule go for non-rude adhoms too?

An ad hom doesn't always have to be rude. In fact, you can make plenty of ad homs being polite and courteous. I see examples of this every day.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

In other words, an ad hom is any argument made against a person, instead of the idea.

An example of this might be "Kaytagg's opinion of the war is wrong, because he's not a soldier."

I may not be a soldier, but that has nothing to do with my opinion of the war. As stated in this thread, that would make anybody who claims my opinion of the war is moot "because I am not a soldier," an ad hom violator.

Do these people get post removal too? I think they should.

Cheers

in answer, from this writer's perspective, to the question raised in the OP: Do non-rude adhoms count too?(paraphrase) I offer this.

an ad hominem argument does not further one's argument and so they should be avoided for that reason alone. Ad Hominem should not be confused with sarcasm or facetiousness or plain ole good times.

I for one am grateful for this change to the TOC as evidenced by my post here

Thanks mods! you guys are swell!

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Tamale_214]

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Tamale_214]

Hominem Ad

reply to post by Kaytagg

It's not a "new rule" (see the links in the article for some history), but just another way of stating a policy that's been in effect for years, and is outlined in section 2 of the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use. It has never been appropriate to harass, threaten or attack anyone.

So ad hominem attacks are inappropriate and don't belong in our forums.

Ad hominem arguments, however (and as you've pointed out), can take more subtle forms. In almost all cases, they are at least logically invalid and can be rebutted as such, but they may not always be invalid or violate the T&C.

For example, if you claim to be God, and another member challenges your claim, you might consider that an ad hominem attack. Nonetheless, challenging such a claim would not necessarily be inappropriate or insulting, even if you might consider it to be. Context is key.

In general, though, ATS members (even members who are gods) are not topics for discussion and therefore should not be subjected to personal commentary in threads. Such comments are, by nature, off-topic and usually tend to derail discussion. Thus if you encounter such an argument, let us know and we'll have a look.

Optionally, if an ad hominem argument isn't patently obnoxious, you may choose to logically (and politely) challenge it by pointing out the fallacy of ad hominem and referring back to the topic. If a member refuses to take the hint and insists on derailing a thread, however, then please let us know.

And when in doubt, it never hurts to let us know anyway.




[edit on 7/18/2009 by Majic]