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?

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.