>It's ironic that the top reply to a comment about quality of discourse on this site is an ad hominem. You might find the Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy page inter

>It's ironic that the top reply to a comment about quality of discourse on this site is an ad hominem. You might find the Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy page interesting: "Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments." https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html So for example, if I said: "The arguments for constructing an AI pause button are bad because they are being made by AI company employees", this would be a fallacious argument. If I said: "HN users have this weird mental block where they fail to take AI progress seriously", that's not necessarily a fallacious argument, unless it's for the purpose of undermining an argument the HN user made.