“My Opponent is a Nazi”

The most common form of argument, often encountered in any discipline, all types of discussion, across almost every medium, is the argument ad hominem (Latin meaning, “to the man”). This method of argument attempts to link the validity of Person A’s argument to the conduct or belief system of that person. It is most often employed incorrectly, and becomes a logical fallacy as a result.

Whether it’s the Glenn Beck Program, the 2008 presidential race, or the tea party movement, ad hom is everywhere. It is as if one says “My opponent is a nazi,” and the argument is over. All one needs to do in order to demonize and disarm an oponnent is to accuse them of being a racist, fascist, socialist, or bigot. One might even identify their oppenent as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (That’s Richard Dawkins discussiong God...) Rhetoric has a place, but it is not the foundation of an argument.

Barack Obama is not a nazi and George Bush is not a nazi. Republicans are not nazis and democrats are not nazis. Theists are not nazis and athiests are not nazis. It is embrassingly jouvenile to throw ad hom attacks at opponents as is often done in popular books, media, and conversation.

Intelligent people can disagree with good inent and good reason. Show the opposing view some respect, treat it with some contemplation, you might learn something... even if it is why you unreservedly reject it.