In Praise of Personal Attacks

[Koolay]

I think a lot of people are too quick to dismiss discussing personal aspects in an argument, calling 'ad hominem' when someone has doubts as to the legitimacy of the arguer.

In a debate, you are selling logic to another person - so surely the person should be logical if he/she believe the advice?

For example, if a nutritionist proposed the best possible diet for humans, yet was obese. Or a financial advisor telling me how to spend your money but was homeless. Needless to say there would be scepticism as to the legitimacy of that person's claim to be proficient in these fields, since their personal life reflects the opposite.

There was a recent case of two life coaches committing suicide.

In these cases, one of two things are occuring:

A) Either the advice is incorrect
B) They don't have belief in their advice.

Neither are good. Personal life can provide content for discussion in a debate.

If someone insults you rather than correctly addressing the reason or evidence, are they really logical as they claim?

If someone brings what they like rather than what is true into a debate, are they really logical as they claim?

If someone lazy and wants more subsidies for the poor, are they really arguing from logic?

If someone rich wants more subsidies for the rich, are they really arguing from logic?

[Foxaèr]

This entire original post is an ad hominem.

[Koolay]

This entire original post is an ad hominem.

Yes it is.

What is your point?

[Savannahw]

Personal attacks are against the forum rules. Maybe you should read them
http://atheistforums.org/rules.php
As a discussion based forum, the ability to interact civilly is very important. Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed, as are off-handed comments that do not escalate into flame wars. Staff will take the context of each insult into consideration before taking action. Provoked insults (as determined by staff) will not incur a warning, but they are not encouraged. In the case of unprovoked insults, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest, and will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take. Members are encouraged to use the "report post" button if they believe a post violates this rule. This rule does not cover attacking someone's argument. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "That argument is stupid", but it is recommended to back it up with sound reasoning.

This also means trolling, flame wars, and intentionally harassing other members with offensive material is strictly prohibited. Offensive language, images, or jokes are not specifically covered by this rule, unless it is done with the intent of attacking another member. If something is posted that is generally offensive to many members of the board, it may be removed pending staff discussion and disciplinary action may be taken.

Penalties for breaking this rule will include verbal warnings, official warnings, and potential banning based on the severity of the infraction. No ban will be made without staff discussion first, unless the infraction involves deliberate trolling or gratuitous flaming.

[Kayenneh]

For example, if a nutritionist proposed the best possible diet for humans, yet was obese. Or a financial advisor telling me how to spend your money but was homeless. Needless to say there would be scepticism as to the legitimacy of that person's claim to be proficient in these fields, since their personal life reflects the opposite.

So your oncologist would need to have had cancer for you to believe in her findings and knowledge? I'm smelling poisoning of the well here..

As for your notion on logic, logic is limited to the variables know to the person using logic.

[Faith No More]

I think a lot of people are too quick to dismiss discussing personal aspects in an argument, calling 'ad hominem' when someone has doubts as to the legitimacy of the arguer.

The legitimacy of the arguer has no bearing on the legitimacy of the argument. Therefore, it is irrelevant and a fallacy when it is brought into the debate.

[Koolay]

For example, if a nutritionist proposed the best possible diet for humans, yet was obese. Or a financial advisor telling me how to spend your money but was homeless. Needless to say there would be scepticism as to the legitimacy of that person's claim to be proficient in these fields, since their personal life reflects the opposite.

So your oncologist would need to have had cancer for you to believe in her findings and knowledge?

Well actually, if they have never had cancer that would be a good testament to their knowledge on preventing cancer.

[Kayenneh]

Well actually, if they have never had cancer that would be a good testament to their knowledge on preventing cancer in the first place.

Good try, but I see two obvious flaws in your comeback. Firstly, oncologists focus on treatment of cancer, not prevention. Secondly, if your oncologist is a man, he will most likely contract prostate cancer during his lifetime and a woman might get due to unfortunate genes get breast cancer. Does it make them any less credible?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Well actually, if they have never had cancer that would be a good testament to their knowledge on preventing cancer in the first place.

Good try, but I see two obvious flaws in your comeback. Firstly, oncologists focus on treatment of cancer, not prevention. Secondly, if your oncologist is a man, he will most likely contract prostate cancer during his lifetime and a woman might get due to unfortunate genes get breast cancer. Does it make them any less credible?

Not to mention occupational exposures and other types of exposures throughout their lives, their general genetic makeup and so on.

Logic is logic regardless of who is presenting it.

I'll not fire every oncologist who's had cancer and hire people who's never had cancer before to take their place. That's crazy.

[Something completely different]

you dont seem to know what the word logic actualy means