Personal Attack

[Sandman]

Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of an argument, e.g. the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims.

For example:
Witness: "I saw X murder the shopkeeper."
Defense attorney: "Isn't it true that you are a convicted felon?"

On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process.

Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a logical fallacy called Ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man".

Source

[Coolridr]

So reallly most of our debates here are a personal attack?

[Sandman]

Don't know if I'd say "most", but there certainly are a lot.

[midnight Target]

And why should we believe a person of "your" ilk about this issue?

[Coolridr]

Originally posted by midnight Target
And why should we believe a person of "your" ilk about this issue?

[AKIron]

Sometimes this is perceived as a "personal attack".

On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process.

I'd much rather provoke thought than offend someone though I'm sure I have been gulity of the latter in some of our more heated "discussions" here.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Coolridr
So reallly most of our debates here are a personal attack?

So it does look like.. at least many are very keen to attack me :>

[Bodhi]

Bait

[Skuzzy]

I can tell this thread is not going to last long.  Nice troll Sandman.

However, you seem to have quoted the 'legal' meaning of 'personal attack'.  I think I can be safe in saying the legal explanation for most things falls well outside the defination procured using 'common sense'.

[midnight Target]

Of course Skuzzy is one of those "Administrators", and you know how those kind of people are...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
I can tell this thread is not going to last long.  Nice troll Sandman.

As always, my best trolls are unintentional.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by midnight Target
And why should we believe a person of "your" ilk about this issue?

Punk.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
I can tell this thread is not going to last long.  Nice troll Sandman.

However, you seem to have quoted the 'legal' meaning of 'personal attack'.  I think I can be safe in saying the legal explanation for most things falls well outside the defination procured using 'common sense'.

Are you saying lawyers don't have common sense, or that they either ignore it or don't use it?

And isn't that a generalized personal attack?

[JB73]

as tempers flare, and ego's clash...

so are the days of out board.

[Furious]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
I can tell this thread is not going to last long.  Nice troll Sandman.

However, you seem to have quoted the 'legal' meaning of 'personal attack'.  I think I can be safe in saying the legal explanation for most things falls well outside the defination procured using 'common sense'.

Ah, but Skuzzy your definition only falls into the realm of which side of the arguement you agree with.