It has recently come to my attention that many here do not comprehend the difference between invective and argument by ad hominem. I really dislike like these logical fallacy discussions, but if you are going to bring it up, at least be correct about it next time.
In my previous diary entry I called Juan Cole a "tool," and many here kept mistaking that for an ad hom argument. It was entirely invective, an insult, or simple abuse. The difference isn't in the word, but in the usage.
Calling dKos patrons tools is invective. Saying that you don't understand the difference between invective and ad hom because you are dKos patrons is ad hom.
A classic example of an ad hom is from Juan Cole himself when he claims that somebody "doesn't know anything about Iran" because "He doesn't speak Persian, and I believe he has never been there." Instead of actually forming a substantive argument, Cole attacks the person. More specifically, this is an ad hom of circumstance.
It is a rational statement that somebody who speaks the local languages might would be better equipted to understand the region, but it isn't proof of anything. If speaking Persian gave the professor a better understanding, it would come out in his ability to make more forceful arguements and speak about the issue with deeper knowledge. It simply cannot be used as a reason he is right.
When I say most of you are all a bunch of flaming morons incapable of either forming a cogent argument or evaluating one, that is strictly an insult combined with a statement. If I am using the fact that you people are flaming morons to back up the observation that you are incapable of discourse, then that is argument by ad hom.
Do all of you understand it now, you tools (invective)?