>Yes: "I'm leaning towards the theory that Cde Mayer has some form of
>Tourette's syndrome." That kind of reply stops discussion by switching
>from the topic at issue to the (presumed) character/personality/morals
>of the opponent. I find such unpricipled disruption of argument both
>offensive and stupid. Doug is bright enough (and in this case obviously
>correct enough) that he has no need for such stupidity and
>offensiveness.
>
>Carrol
Only on the rarest of occasions has this "opponent" responded to Doug's requests that he justify why he repeatedly blames us actions on Israel. This has been going on for well over a year, probably close to two years. When someone refuses to actually subject their claims to argument, then they're not an opponent any longer.
Frankly, I think you should make a distinction between simple name calling and ad hominem abusive. I think that only if the name-calling is frequent and repetitive--LNP3.exe was often guilty of this--then it is an attempt to make the object of the name-calling into an object of derision for the entire group/audience. But, as you know, name calling or the use of foul language isn't necessarily ad hominem. Well, :), I guess that's a debatable point, but it is one I've read in several discussions of logical fallacy.
As long as Steve's paying attention, maybe you can explain to him why defending someone's position or objecting to a critics position by pointing out that they might not hold that position if they only knew the Other in real life is a logical fallacy. :)
Oh, and really, I think it'd be much better were people to realize that saying things like:
"You may argue that God doesn't exist, but this is just a fad" "That kind of thinking reminds me of the way my daughter behaved before she grew up" "You aren't really interested in X because you don't do it yourself"
are forms of ad hominem. Everyone can pick up on a Tourette's syndrome comment and recognize it for what it is, but it's the more subtle stuff that is far more frequent.
Kelley