[JasonFruit]

    Far too often, logical fallacies are invoked in order to run away from an argument.

I think this is the core point: the fallacy-lobbers are often looking to dismiss the entire conversation rather than trying to participate in it. There's no counter-argument; instead, the message is, "You're too dumb to bother with." That may sometimes be true, but it's never conducive to enlightening discussion.

[Nursie]

I totally agree with his assessment of the misuse of the term ad-hominem too.

An ad-hom fallacy is "your argument is wrong because you're an immoral moron", not "your argument is wrong for these reasons, you immoral moron".

The latter is not very nice and probably shouldn't be encouraged, but it's not an ad-hominem because the insult is not part of the argument, just an unpleasant aside.

[bjhoops1]

Also, there is nothing illogical about saying "this person or source of information has a reputation for being wrong or deceitful, therefore I will not be spending my time examining their claims." This is not really an ad hominem, just saying that due to the unlikelihood of an individual having anything to contribute, you are choosing to not engage their argument. I suppose this falls under "running away from the argument".

[alexqgb]

Exactly. Which is why it would be an ad hominem (or really, ad feminum) to say "How can we possibly trust you as our CFO? You're a woman!" since there is no pertinent relationship between gender and the job's requirements. However, there's nothing illogical about saying "How can we possibly trust you as our CFO? You're a convicted embezzler!"

Indeed, if the personal considerations are this relevant, it would quite illogical not to consider them. Likewise, I someone has established a general reputation for idiocy, slop, and other crimes against lucidity, it's perfectly reasonable to flag their remarks as dubious until proven otherwise. It's actually a perfectly rational conservation of time and energy.

[JasonFruit]

Very true — it's not illogical to think that, or to use it as a reason to ignore the discussion. Responding to someone by pointing that reasoning out, however, is very seldom going to lead to productive discussion. It's usually best left unsaid.

[samatman]

Ad-hom is often invoked against arguments of the form "So-and-so advocated that position and look what happened". This is actually argument from consequence and is useful, Godwin be damned.

[jlgreco]

While we are on the topic, the whole "Godwin" shit drives me batty. Yes, I get that "You won't let me go to the dance with Timmy? You are Hitler!" is not cool, but for the most part in mature discussion that is not what is happening right before somebody starts hysterically screaming "GODWIN!"

If history is to be considered important, it is because we think we can learn from it. However our ability to do so is cut short if we reject any allusion to history in which magnitude and severity are mismatched.

For example: If you kick a small village of several dozen in Africa out of their homes to make room for a pipeline, that is not equivalent to the 'Trail of Tears', but there sure as hell are valid comparisons to be made nevertheless. However the overly enthusiastic "Godwinists" would have us believe any comparison between the two would be uncalled for.

[kmm]

It colours the argument and tries to make the other party sounds bad. Obviously this is done with the intent to "win" the argument. And thus "your argument is wrong for these reasons, you immoral moron" is a disingenuous way to reason, which comes close to a fallacy in my opinion.

Oh, and I sometimes see ad-hominem used to refer to the whole of slurs, condescension and things that are said to make me feel/look bad, regardless of whether an argument is going on.

[abraininavat]

While I agree with you for the most part, the context and nature of the debate is important. In a casual conversation that happens to be an argument, there's (usually) some semblance of a logical argument that can be teased out from a large amount of non-logical communication. In that context, picking on any of that non-logical communication and calling it a fallacy is silly.

In the context of a real debate, however, when each party has the goal of arguing a side, and an audience is there to hear and evaluate each party's words in the context of the argument, I think a phrase like "you immoral moron" is indeed to be taken as an ad-hominum. In that situation every statement is assumed to be part of your argument.

[Nursie]

It can be taken as a sign of weakness of argument, of bad technique and of uncivility, certainly. Even grounds for disqualification from a formal debate.

It's not an ad-hominem fallacy though.

[ionforce]

I don't agree with this. I think the root problem in many "arguments" is that the two parties are speaking completely different languages or using two different rule sets. One side will use logical sounding arguments that aren't really logical, and the other side will actually use logic. The logical side isn't "running away" from this argument. They are taking it head on, as an argument should be taken.

Or, you both need to admit to yourselves that what is going on is just political theater and not really argumentation. Which is fine, but just different.

But let's not throw away all of our logical tools because some idiot doesn't know how to use them.

[Joeri]

In my opinion the root problem is a lack of recognition on what the assumptions and intentions are on either side. You can correctly apply logic to flawed assumptions and end up in some weird places. Similarly you can take the same set of facts and use different intentions to construct seemingly rational arguments out of them which end up at incompatible outcomes. Real world facts tend to be vague and messy, and are largely unsuitable for reasoning with.

[nazgulnarsil]

It's called getting tired of wasting your time with someone who has no intention of changing their mind. If you point out that an argument is flawed and they say something like your quoted text, I'm going to ignore that person.