Ad homenims do make an argument. In other words calling people names in the effort to belittle and/or denigrate them in an argument/debate do nothing other than to conspicously flag themsselves for others to see that they are unable to make any compelling arguments in their defense. They are unable to simply agree to disagree and would rather make parting shots on the way out in a vain effort to protect their already fragile and questionable ego. During the AB2072 protest period a few years back compelling arguments were made for the support of AB2072 but for some of the detractors they were bent on using ad homenims instead thinking it would shut up supporters of AB2072. So severe it has gotten it has led to some serious cyberbullying responses such as contacting employers of AB2072 supporters the effort to shut them up. That was an extreme form of ad hominem manifested in the form of pure hate with no logical reason for doing so. Those are usually the hallmark signatures of a cyberbully or have the potential of becoming one. This is a problem with people who have the tendency to be emotionally laden to attack without provocation because they are unable to make compelling or persuasive arguements. Because of certain insecurity issues or other internal issues they feel compelled to attack arguments with ad homenims because they have no compelling arguments to give. Best to simply disagree and provide compelling reasons in support of your own arguments just as I have done describing the existence of "adult cyberbullying."
↧