"Also, don't waste half your essay talking about whether someone has the right or experience to comment on the topic. They've already done so, and it's more ad hominem. Get to the point." -- Yes, attacking someone's "right...to comment" is probably fruitless, but no, it's not the same thing as a reader laying out what they think are defi…
"Also, don't waste half your essay talking about whether someone has the right or experience to comment on the topic. They've already done so, and it's more ad hominem. Get to the point." -- Yes, attacking someone's "right...to comment" is probably fruitless, but no, it's not the same thing as a reader laying out what they think are deficiencies in a contributor's experience and qualifications. The purpose of that is usually not to roll back reality, as you imply (in a "straw man" move of your own). Instead, it can be to suggest why readers might want to approach the the original writer's views with some caution. Ad hominem attacks are personal and character-based; bringing up an author's experience is not in itself an ad hominem attack. Qualifications such as experience are a legitimate part of the evidence you call for in a reply.
"Also, don't waste half your essay talking about whether someone has the right or experience to comment on the topic. They've already done so, and it's more ad hominem. Get to the point." -- Yes, attacking someone's "right...to comment" is probably fruitless, but no, it's not the same thing as a reader laying out what they think are deficiencies in a contributor's experience and qualifications. The purpose of that is usually not to roll back reality, as you imply (in a "straw man" move of your own). Instead, it can be to suggest why readers might want to approach the the original writer's views with some caution. Ad hominem attacks are personal and character-based; bringing up an author's experience is not in itself an ad hominem attack. Qualifications such as experience are a legitimate part of the evidence you call for in a reply.