It seems to me that quite often the protestations that we see of "argumentum ad hominem" are little more than a convenient "receptum ignavorum".

While the concept that one should go for the ball, not the man, is well understood and accepted, not every tackle is necessarily a foul.

When assessing an offering that contains assertions of fact, the first port of call would be "is it accurate?" This is relatively easy to determine, given the wealth of reference material at our disposal. For example, should a contributor claim that their ancestors are entombed in a small, derelict Scottish cathedral, it is the easiest thing in the world to check.

Opinions, of course, do not conform to this simplistic approach. They may be sincerely held, or they may be purely confrontational for the sake of confrontation. And to attack an individual who presents a poorly argued position by simply saying "hey, you're stupid" doesn't illuminate, but is simply an invitation to trade insults.

On the other hand, I believe that it is perfectly legitimate, if the poster offering a dumb opinion has a history of dissembling, distortion and invention, to be allowed to offer this information. In the same way that checking available resources is legitimate when dealing with facts, gaining an insight into the character of a contributor through others' observations of their integrity should not be condemned out of hand.

But it is noticeable that every time this does happen, a little squeal goes up, "ad hominem, ad hominem", as if the offering of valid background information is somehow sinful per se.

The forces of blind censorship appear to be gathering around us, ready to punish any opinion that isn't, in someone's view, "quite the thing". It would be sad if any observations of a personal nature were to go the same way.

How boring would that be?

R0bert (and others)

‘...it is disturbing to see more evidence of such foul behind the scenes behavior by activists supposedly working for a better society.’

How can you be sure that this is the case?

One person’s ‘silencing dissent’ is another person’s ‘taking a stand’. You and others here might like to take a look at how two of the other online forums affected by this issue have responded to it.

Larvatus Prodeo: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/02/05/saturday-salon-35/#comments
En Passant: http://enpassant.com.au/?p=9276

In a nutshell, LP host Mark Bahnisch plus about 99% of LP commentariat either approve of, or are not at all concerned by, the stand taken by the ANZ and IBM. And to quote John Passant at En Passant:

‘This is not about free speech. It is about gays and lesbians withdrawing their dollars and the opportunity to make dollars form someone who has published the views of the oppressor.’

On that note, I should state my bias: I invest with Ethical Investments, and I am very grateful that they took the stand they did. Otherwise, what was the point of my investing with them?

Also, the advertising industry is not into either ethics or free speech. Its profits depend to a large extent on going with prevailing opinion. At present, all the polls point to the fact that the Australian majority favours gay marriage and supports the climate change premise. So one could say that this issue is much more about the free market than censorship.

Briar Rose,
You want to make marriage available to those who love each other. What if a man loves two sisters (or two brothers), can he marry them both?
 
In labelling our adversaries delusional, we are indeed expressing an opinion. The question is whether this opinion is valid in the circumsances or unnecessary ad hominem.     

We all hold belief systems; some are more explicit, others implicit. Now even though you admit Bill didn't refer to his faith based beliefs in his article, you justify your claim that he is delusional because of his belief system. 

That is, because Bill believes in the supernatural he is delusional.

I, of course, find this unjustified (and you haven't really tried to justify it). To call someone delusional because he holds a different belief system to yours is arguing ad hominem.

Yet I feel you're entering waters even more murky. For by attacking Bill's particular belief system, you are claiming that all Christians, in fact all who believe in a personal deity, are delusional.

Now we're entering the domain of vilification. Calling a section of society delusional is not really valid comment. What would it mean if I said all buddhists, or all liberal voters, or all gays, or all Collingwood supporters, or all vegetarians, or all curly haired people were delusional? (I'm some of these but not all.) 

At best it would mean my argument must be weak for I make unnecessary recall to ad hominem. At worst I could end up fronting the equal opportunity commissioner.  

Ummm, Dan, just look up delusional.

I have yet to see anybody prove the existence of any deity in a manner that uses facts rather than faith. Yet the beliefs persist, and are used as a justification for truth claims about hetereosexuality and gay people.

So my opinion is that I am entitled to use the term delusional about this attitude, and I'm not using ad hominem arguments and I'm not vilifying anybody. If you or anyone else read the comment as such, then it is up to you to prove that and disprove my claims by proving that faith is based in facts and rationality.

Killarney, of course this is about the market. Banks do not take *ethical* stands unless they are profitable. Of course the ANZ took this stand because society, and their customers, are apparently pro gay marriage.

However, that stand inevitably results in censorship. Is every opposing view on everything society currently favours to be silenced by powerful corporate interests to further their own agendas?

For example, do we want Fox News to be our only source of information and opinion?

Most of the commenters on MTR's opinions totally disagree with her. Many feel she and her followers take a hateful attitude towards men. What I've read certainly supports that view and the vilifying comments about men in the flesh eating coffins thing surpasses anything Muehlenberg said about gay marriage and homosexuality.

By your argument, she should therefore be silenced.

Even I wouldn't say that.

This is absolutely about free speech, and John Passant is wrong. In my humble opinion.

Dan,

Yes indeed, those minor issues should have been addressed on those threads, and were. Please, feel free to answer on those threads yourself.

Since you brought up that poor "turkey", it seemed appropriate to refer to an actual example of what you call ad hominem attack, showing that those who complain of it (like you) are usually so full of the usual that the "attack" is simply reasonable filtering of BS.

To give a reasonable example justifying what you would complain was ad hominem: If an individual were to lie about the provenance of a word, having had that word questioned, I would feel justified in regarding that person as untrustworthy, his casual pronouncements subject to suspicion.

Untrustworthiness in small things reflects poorly on character and is regarded as indicative of likely veracity in large ones.

Religious beliefs are a poor basis for determining public policy. One bhagwan and a few sycophants have more "votes" in a "democracy" than a single well informed individual. This does not make the cult "right", just an obstacle.

It is reasonable and likely that a religious adherent will not be espousing their well-considered independent view but simply reiterating whatever their "recieved wisdom" might be.

Since you also bring him up earlier, Sells may well have made a lot of his own input into his views, but the typical biblical literalist is a gull.

Rusty

Briar Rose,
How is Muehlenberg psychologically impaired other than his opinion on gay marriage differs to yours? What FACTS is he avoiding?

No one has realised a proof for God's existence or non existence after centuries of reasoned debate. Libraries have been filled on the subject without conclusion. Yet you presume enough to label he who differs to you on the matter delusional.

This is your opinion? With free speech, you can flagrantly call your adversary any name you like. Yet realise that when atheists claim people are delusional for disagreeing with them that they're not saying anything terribly sophisticated but name calling at an elementary level.

You say that you want to make marriage available to those who love each other. What if a man loves two sisters (or two brothers), according to you can he marry them both?