Stuart Franks from Newcastle Uni occasionally raises serious issues with climate change, so naturally is the subject of much ad hominem abuse. He says that he is often called a contrarian, and points out that it's very difficult to defend - you can't just say "No I'm not."

There is another version: "I'm a scientist..." with the implication that you're not.

Bastards!

Killarney, you have obviously assumed someone on that forum (where everybody used pseudonyms) is me.

I think you need to stop making these accusations, which you've been doing for some time now, they are unfounded and I seriously object to them.

For the record, anybody can disagree with MTR's or anyone's religious faith, or anyone's perceptions of sexuality. Disagreement is not automatically ad hominem argument.

As for her psychological health I have not now or ever had an opinion on that, but I recall that someone did make reference to it on the forum, it just wasn't me.

Democritus, I'm sure I've been guilty of using an ad hominem argument in articles, probably about politicians. But I know I don't usually because those arguments don't work if you're trying to make a point.

I'm actually talking about personal abuse, like the examples I gave in the article today.

The quote you use is a response I made to a commenter who said I was "unscholarly". I'm not sure how that is ad hominem argument from me, I was talking about myself, and I wasn't abusing me.

Jon J : I think it's important for authors to reveal their affiliations, and for readers to point them out in context if they are seen to be influencing the argument. But that doesn't have to be done abusively, and then it isn't an ad hominem attack.

Pointing out vested interests isn't using ad hominen argument. Its important they be known.

Someone was deleted the other day for using an author's religious affiliation as a method of abuse. If they'd just identified it as important in the context of the argument, they probably would have been all right.

I admit it's sometimes a fine line. For example, by coincidence David Williamson is very upset on the Drum today because (among other things) someone called his writing "fat and lazy." They didn't call him "fat and lazy" so I don't think I'd see that as ad hominem argument. It's an interesting observation about his writing, and the writing is fair game, the writer isn't

While I agree that gratuitous flaming and abuse are unwarranted and tiresome, it should be noted that ad-hominem is not *always* a fallacy: for instance, were Charlie Sheen to espouse the virtues of chastity, sobriety and Christian values, one would be well entitled to point highlight his personal qualities.

Plus there's always a place for a good spot of wit, insults and good old head-kicking in any 'spirited debate'.

Briar Rose, interesting piece.

I don't much enjoy the ad hominem stuff but there is a place where a suitable witty comment (not repeated too often) can be great but then perhaps it's only really great when directed at someone who's views don't seem worth serious rebuttal. The danger at the fringes is that it's very much in the eye of the beholder what's a relevant point or witty retort and what's ad hominem.

On the other hand there is plenty of material which is clearly abuse which tells much about those who write it and little about their targets.

R0bert

Thanks for this piece Jennifer. You could probably add Indigenous affairs to your list of article topics that reliably spark argumentum ad hominem.

I think the old-fashioned advice to treat others as you'd like to be treated is as valuable as ever.

I'm intrigued that so many people agree there's a legitimate need for the aggressive, often abusive, denouncement of someone else's views - whether that denouncement involves personal attack or not. Isn't it possible to show people some simple respect by listening to (or reading) their views, then asking questions to clarify their position to ensure you understand it fully, before offering your own alternative point of view - without needing to employ aggressive language or self-righteous opinions about who's right or wrong?

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned or naive (or both), but I don't see why aggression, abuse or general intolerance need have anything to do with the sharing of differing opinions. In my experience aggression does little to broaden understanding or deepen knowledge of an issue. More often it acts to polarise people into extreme positions, encouraging them to close their minds and rigidly hold to a pre-determined position. A result that is quite the opposite, surely, of what we opinion-sharers are aiming to achieve.

M Fahy,
One could hardly have put it better. What a pity that not everybody here seems to agree with these elementary rules of civilised behaviour and politeness in our discussions (especially where world-views are involved), whether or not one calls them "old-fashioned or naive (or both)".