U
The reasoning and logic that people use to debate depends upon the premise that is used. Example: If an individual makes a decision that ends up being a bad one and others are effected, just how are you going to intellectually debate that? What premise are you going to utilize for your debate? Are you going to discredit the person who made the bad decision by showing how others were effected and use that as proof that the individual was unqualified to make the decision that was made? Perhaps that bad decision was a misjudgment based upon the dynamics of situations you are not aware and are not privy to. Wouldn't that make you unqualified to constructively examine the situation without all the facts and wouldn't you have to assume other facts into evidence (or fill the gaps) to come to a logical conclusion?
Wouldn't you also have to be prejudice and put a greater value on how others were effected including their emotional state to have the kind of premise you need to determine the degree of destructiveness of that bad decision and the quality and character of the life of the one who made it? The debater is easily susceptible to their own accusation of 'ad hominem' because of the contention that arises from their own premise for the debate. There is always a degree of prejudice interwoven in every debate and many are just too proud and arrogant to admit to it and therefore cancel out any wisdom and discretion that could be utilized in their conclusions. That is the definition of a certain type of fool.
Wouldn't you also have to be prejudice and put a greater value on how others were effected including their emotional state to have the kind of premise you need to determine the degree of destructiveness of that bad decision and the quality and character of the life of the one who made it? The debater is easily susceptible to their own accusation of 'ad hominem' because of the contention that arises from their own premise for the debate. There is always a degree of prejudice interwoven in every debate and many are just too proud and arrogant to admit to it and therefore cancel out any wisdom and discretion that could be utilized in their conclusions. That is the definition of a certain type of fool.
Calling someone an ad hominem user is an ad hominem itself.
The conundrum of awareness and responsibility.
Good thoughts.