A great many political debaters accuse their opponents of arguing ad hominem, and therefore losing the debate. Usually, these charges are wrong: the character of the person making the argument is an enormously important guide to its merits.
If I’m arguing with a smug Tory bastard, and I suggest that he’s talking out of his arse because he’s a smug Tory bastard, then this is indeed dodgy ad hominem argument. Bad me.
However, this is not the same as trying to gauge the truth of a statement by a known liar, or to judge how factually well-informed a notorious idiot is, or to work out whether a trade union regulation plan proposed by someone who hates trade unions will benefit union members.
A person’s background as a liar, idiot or scab doesn’t affect the *logical* validity of their argument. However, logical validity is only relevant if you accept the truth of an argument’s premises. Since you first need to work out whether you can trust anything they’re saying, assessing past behavior is a vital tool in the debating process.
(and yes, people who argue otherwise only do so because they’re liars and idiots.)
For a laugh check out
http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies
If you’ve the time quote them back at ASI blog writers.
Just the sort of "argument" I’d expect from John Band!… Typical!
Hear, hear. (To John, not Chris.)
Isn’t there a difference between:
(i) guaging the truth of someone’s statements (a personal matter, during which you should certainly take into account the fact that they’re an idiotic habitually lying nazi cunt);
and subsequently
(ii) arguing against their statements (during which you should demonstrate that their premises are idiotic, untrue, or cuntish, or that their arguments are invalid, but without referring to their character)?
Of course if your adversary is being demonstrably hypocrital then it’s another matter. Similarly if you believe they have vested interests, or are concealing their motives it’s reasonable to point this out – I have in mind an impassioned and apparently objective argument for nudist schools being made by a known paedophile.
‘ the character of the person making the argument is an enormously important guide to its merits. ‘
You are one of the biggest morons on the blogosphere. Your posts reflect that quite clearly.
second that