Here's a chance for some of you who are more in touch with (actually remember) the details of your Philosophy/Logic/Debate classes and readings to share your pet peaves as regards what passes for logical discussion both here and in the public arena these days.

F'rinstance, I think the term "Ad hominem" is widely abused these days. Now, this is my understanding mind you, but when a politician "attacks" another politician for his voting record, that is not truly an ad hominem attack (in fact, is arguably quite the opposite).

All ad hominems are red herrings but not all red herrings are ad hominem. My understanding is that in order for an arguement to be deemed "illogical" by virtue (can illogic be "virtuous"? ...I digress) of being ad hominem, the criticism of person (the hominem) on the other side would be unrelated to the question at hand.

Similarly, all personal attacks are not properly ad hominem arguements. Sometimes the issue actually is the person's character or behavior and to bring it up may not be useful, but it is not an ad hominem attack (which again is a specific term regarding logic).

All right, that was a bit of opinion (whether I'm actually right or wrong is open for debate -- what isn't open for debate on the mudcat?)....

...here's a related question. What is the proper terminology when referring to the illogic illustrated by the Einstein bumper sticker wherein he is quoted as say that one cannot simultaneously prepare for war and peace? It's sort of like ad hominem in reverse -- that is, it lends the weight of who Einstein is (a brilliant physicist/mathmetician) to a question not in his field of expertise. The bumper sticker may be true, but not necessarily because Einstein said it.