One of the tenets of critical thinking is the adoption and subsequent delinquency of the Ad Hominem argument. The concept of espousing the details of an argument or claim by an individual, and yet somehow be insulated from personal evaluation by the intended audience appears to be created within the realm of careless consideration born from idealistic propensities. The Ad Hominem attack as a legitimate rhetorical tool is vitally important for the bases of the counter-argument. Upon close examination, the Ad Hominem attack should be a required component of the vetting process, and any serious evaluation demands the process of this consideration. The idealistic endeavor of uncoupling the messenger from the message is mundanely pathetic, and quite simply impossible. While most of the logical fallacies are built on consistent and rational critical thinking, the Ad Hominem argument FAILS the critical thinking test.

One of the tenets of critical thinking is the adoption and subsequent delinquency of the Ad Hominem argument. The concept of espousing the details of an argument or claim by an individual, and yet somehow be insulated from personal evaluation by the intended audience appears to be created within the realm of careless consideration born from idealistic propensities.

The Ad Hominem attack as a legitimate rhetorical tool is vitally important for the bases of the counter-argument. Upon close examination, the Ad Hominem attack should be a required component of the vetting process, and any serious evaluation demands the process of this consideration. The idealistic endeavor of uncoupling the messenger from the message is mundanely pathetic, and quite simply impossible. While most of the logical fallacies are built on consistent and rational critical thinking, the Ad Hominem argument FAILS the critical thinking test.

I have to say that this is an argument you cannot win. I say this without malice, but not only do I not agree with you, I also have very little respect for your opinions on these matters.

If your logic turns out to be sound in all other manners (and really you don't use any logic, just restate the same proposition several times over), I can still reject it for the simple fact that I have found you to be wrong on most philosophical matters.

As for your actual opinion, suppose both I and Michael Dummett make the same argument against the validity of the ad hominem. If we make the same statements, how can it be possible that one argument can be true, while one false?

Ironically, Mr. Fight the Power in post #3 is utilizing the very same method you are trying to defend (and berate him for)? the ad hominem remark. You admit it yourself by saying that "? 70% of your (Mr. Fight the Power's) post is comprised of accusation." Isn't the fact that he is attacking your character a cornerstone of an ad hominem remark?

The Argumentum ad Hominem, complemented by the Argumentum ex Homine? Man and Argument? Let's add a dash of humanity to this silly game. Let me tell you the Sentimental Story of Baal, the bad Baal, der Teufel himself, arguing...

The Source:
Baal : Der b?se Baal der asoziale... / Bertolt Brecht - Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp Verlag, 1973. - 233 p. : ill. - (Edition Suhrkamp ; 248)
My translation is incomplete.

The Setting:
Berlin, 1934. Hitler is well established as Reichs-chancellor, the trains ride in time. Unemployment is low and the Crisis is becoming a thing of the past. The ladies love the uniforms. The New Regime is also adored by the bourgeois, who are becoming wealthier by the day. It's around Christmas and it's damn damn cold in the Friedrichstrasse...

The Beggar:
It is cold and I have no coat. I am freezing. There is a fine gentleman. Perhaps he can tell me what I can do against the cold? Good day sir.

Baal (not even looking at the beggar)
Don't you know you just don't talk like that to gentlemen in the street?

The Beggar:
I'm very cold sir, perhaps you can tell me what I can do against the cold?

Baal (showing the beggar his two overcoats)
It is not cold.

The Beggar
Could you please sir perhaps lend me one of your coats? I'm freezing sir, please...

Baal (looking at the beggar, astonished)
What is your name?

The Beggar:
My name is Joseph, sir. I am your brother on Earth.

Baal:
I have three brothers, one is called Anton, the other is called Karl... the third one.. damn, I forgot his name! Perhaps it was Joseph? I have to check it out. Can you come back tomorrow?

The Beggar;
But I am freezing sir. There is an old chair against the wall. I will break it to pieces and burn them.

Baal:
Give me the chair so I can sit down and think! Ah, these coats are heavy...
(After an hour of deep thinking)
I got it: I must give you hope, or you will freeze. Give me your vest, so I can sit more comfortably and think better. I have good ideas today...

The Beggar:
Thank you so much for thinking sir...

Baal:
Sit down at my feet Joseph, they are getting cold. Yes the world is indeed full of malice, and a lot is lacking in God's creation, let's take this cold. You are my brother, and perhaps our father had too many sons, who will say?. And one of the faults of man is that he is too much focussed on material things, take you Joseph. Would you still have come to me if you had not been cold? Didn't you just recognize me as your brother because I had two coats? Yes, now you are silent, because you know I'm right... [and Baal goes on like this for another hour, arguing, demonstrating, deducing, a deep objective thinker, a philosopher to the bone...]

The Beggar:
(Dies of the cold).

Baal:
Joseph, you were one of those predestined to freeze!

The only ironic confluence to occur is your own confabulation of understanding. Clearly, MFTP demonstrated his own accurate impression of the dubious accusation of the Ad Hominem Argument, which we both concurred. It just that his critical thinking is less refined, consequently exposing him to repeated attacks of credibility.

First, my arguments are carefully developed and evaluated (won) before they are displayed in written composition.

My initial post was comprised of 6 sentences. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM attacking the credibility of the ad hominem accusation, yet you process the sequential flow of information 180 degrees from static reality(the post), and you want me to consider your responses with any seriousness when you have carelessly and utterly failed the reading comprehension component of the claim. Until this woeful mishap is reconciled, and some form of measurable credibility can be reestablished, the discussion CANNOT move forward.

P.S. This situation clearly offers how the ad hominem is a required process and efficient rhetorical tool for detailed evaluation.

This situation clearly offers how the ad hominem is a required process and efficient rhetorical tool for detailed evaluation.

My initial post was comprised of 6 sentences. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM attacking the credibility of the ad hominem accusation, yet you process the sequential flow of information 180 degrees from static reality(the post), and you want me to consider your responses with any seriousness when you have carelessly and utterly failed the reading comprehension component of the claim. Until this woeful mishap is reconciled, and some form of measurable credibility can be reestablished, the discussion CANNOT move forward.

P.S. This situation clearly offers how the ad hominem is a required process and efficient rhetorical tool for detailed evaluation.

One of the tenets of critical thinking is the adoption and subsequent delinquency of the Ad Hominem argument. The concept of espousing the details of an argument or claim by an individual, and yet somehow be insulated from personal evaluation by the intended audience appears to be created within the realm of careless consideration born from idealistic propensities. The Ad Hominem attack as a legitimate rhetorical tool is vitally important for the bases of the counter-argument. Upon close examination, the Ad Hominem attack should be a required component of the vetting process, and any serious evaluation demands the process of this consideration. The idealistic endeavor of uncoupling the messenger from the message is mundanely pathetic, and quite simply impossible. While most of the logical fallacies are built on consistent and rational critical thinking, the Ad Hominem argument FAILS the critical thinking test.

WHAT? You cannot be serious, right? You actually reread the post and only come up with plausible deniability for my assertions. At this time, I would like to borrow a quote from Tony McAuliffe, a famous WWII General "NUTS".


P.S. Once you acknowledge your utter misunderstanding, I will address your problematic claim pertaining to the ad hominem attack.