It would seem to be ad-hominem, because in the context of an ongoing public conversation it would seem to be a hint, or open suggestion, to others that they should discount what you are saying.
If it was not, than its still a personal attack, but isn't ad-hominem.
Many people think "Ad-hominem" = "personal attack", but you can have either one without the other.
Ad-hominem but not personal attack - "We shouldn't be concerned about your opinion on teacher salaries, of course your going to support their increase, your a teacher".
Personal attack but not ad-hominem - All sorts of insults that either are not in the context of a debate or discussion of some point, or that are in such a context but are not even indirectly suggestions that people not consider someone's opinion, or that they give it less consideration, because of the status, personality, habits, funding, etc. etc. of the person or group making the argument.
Both - Person 1 - "The Cato Institute says that...
Person 2 - "Cato is just a bunch of crazy libertarians, who corruptly get funded by oil companies..."
After that the "and so we shouldn't care what they say", or something to similar effect may be stated explicitly, but even if it isn't, its implied or suggested by the attack on Cato. It doesn't have to actually be explicitly stated.
Also whether or not the attack is based on truth, doesn't change whether its ad-hominem or not. You can have ad-hominem, which isn't an attack, which is based on truth, but its still not much of an argument, because the truth of a statement is not determined by the characteristics or situation of the person making the statement. |
