I am starting this thread to try and develop some clarity about posting practice and why some things are acceptable and others are not. If we tried to prevent every form of fallacy from being posted by banning the poster we not only would not be getting much posting, we probably would likely have to ban just about everyone.
http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/
http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html
http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies
The issue for posting practice is not the inherently flawed logic demonstrated by all the examples offered on these lengthy lists, it is the element of interpersonal assault and intentionally disruptive behavior designed to derail communication from going in a direction that is undesirable for the perpetrator of the offense and reciprocated by those that get caught up in the tit for tat behavior.
Hence an insult and an ad hominem are not the same, however they share the interpersonal assault and for that reason both are proscribed. Ad hominem is a fallacy that uses insult, regardless of the fact that it is a common form of fallacy and also at times considered *witty*, just teasing or *harmless*. Generally some forms of such banter are relatively harmless, however when sentiments become polarized in a highly sensitized climate, then it is perhaps better for the institute to take a *zero tolerance* policy with respect to such behavior.
It is far less easy to enforce rules against many of the other fallacies on the list that include insult by extension. Sometimes it involves enforcement against the result rather than the specific act. If actions result in a virtual riot then the Nav's are forced to crack down on the disruptive result. For example this is often the result of individuals assimilating aspects of culture, religion, or political doctrine into their *self definition*, hence when they perceive an attack on the lager concepts they hold sacred, they obviously take it personally. This is normal, rational, and might even be psychologically healthy under some circumstances, however it is not valid for formal logic and for debate to be constructive.
For example here on this list of fallacious arguments (you can see detailed explanations at the links above) nearly all can result in personal conflict depending on how the argument is framed. Not all these fallacies depend entirely on personal insult, negative innuendo, or direct attack but they all contain the risk that they can be used that way or result in what appears as personal insult by extension.
# Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
# Appeal to Authority
# Appeal to Belief
# Appeal to Common Practice
# Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
# Appeal to Emotion
# Appeal to Fear
# Appeal to Flattery
# Appeal to Popularity
# Appeal to Ridicule
# Appeal to Spite
# Appeal to Tradition
# Bandwagon
# Biased Sample
# Circumstantial Ad Hominem
# False Dilemma
# Genetic Fallacy
# Guilt By Association
# Personal Attack
# Poisoning the Well
# Questionable Cause
# Special Pleading
# Straw Man
# Two Wrongs Make A Right
