Ep. 98: Are Ad Hominem Arguments Useful? /w/terminal philosophy/

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Terminal Philosophy to discuss whether ad hominem arguments are useful. The ad hominem fallacy as well as the closely related whataboutism point is routinely viewed as an invalid form of argumentation. It is not a logical inconsistency rather a pragmatic inconsistency. In best practice, it is pointing out that the person does the very thing that they are against in their formal argumentation. A common example is the smoker who tells their child not to smoke. The child asks, “If smoking is so bad, why are you doing it? What about your own smoking habit?” Another example is, someone complaining about the Ukraine being invaded by Russia and you point out “what about the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq”? A third example of this is in the case of climate change. If climate change is so bad why are you living by the sea and flying around in private jets? A fourth example is with respect to lockdowns: if lockdowns do really save lives, why are the elites themselves not following the rules they advocate?  In all these circumstances the whataboutism point seems to be not only relevant but more relevant then the abstract logical point.  In all these circumstances it seems that the arguer doesn’t take the argument they are making seriously in their own case. Why is that not relevant and salient information?