Regarding the agreement to reframe from ad hominem arguments, it was asked elsewhere, "Not even the President?" The answer is yes, not even the President. No one anywhere, no one on SI, no one on this thread, no persons or peoples, no races, no genders, no individual or group, no one over here or over there, no one anywhere. No I don't like ad hominem arguments nor green eggs and ham, Infodart I am.
The prohibition against Ad hominem arguments should not be confused the bonafide and important discussion of the "character" of an individual, where the character of the individual is an essential component of the larger argument. For example, given the question of can this President properly do his job. And, given an initial assertion and agreement that "character" is an essential prerequisite for properly executing the duties of a President, then one could make arguments in support of the notion that the president lacks "Character," without necessarily engaging in ad hominem arguments.
Please see definitions I will be posting later on regarding ad hominem arguments as rhetorical fallacies. Rhetorical fallacies, by definition, try to move us further from the truth rather than closer.
|
