2 ms·

So far your best comment? Argument ad-hominem is, of course, not indicative of falacy. On the contrary, it is quite usefully devastaing. You can consult wikiped

• mpweiher 14y ago
  No, my best comments were where I demolished everything you'd actually said point by point using these things called...wait...ah yes: facts! You may have heard of the concept in passing somewhere. Or not. Wikipedia: "Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an irrelevance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Yep, you're right about that, too. It's really not a falacy. It's a fallacy. And also Nietzsche, not Neitszche. And devastating, not devastaing. As to devastating ad hominems: I'd suggest they might become a trifle more devastating if you start with elementary spelling, work your way up via basic grammar ("its" vs "it's") and simple word semantics such as "quote" and "plagiarism" all the way to reading comprehension before attempting to tackle economics and philosophy. Just sayin'
  • 001sky 14y ago
    Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and ... in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words. Funny how that works, right? That must be the edge case.
    • mpweiher 14y ago
      QED :-)