hominem

As in downvoting because you don't agree with the opinion, rather than because the post is irrelevant, ad-hominem, or content-free.

It also doesn't justify ad hominem attacks, which -- unlike my criticism of Scala -- are completely unfounded.

Edit: up vote for you for fostering an intelligent conversation and not resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Fabricating facts and using ad-hominem is not a very good way of backing up your arguments.

Also prevents ad hominem attacks and can allow informed authors to speak without fear of retribution.

Sorry about the ad-hominem in the previous post, it was a poor choice of words.

I find it amusing that defining the term is met by an instant ad hominem attack making a claim that all users of the term are unintelligent woman haters.

I'll offer a counter-thought to the carping about how stupid this is, the ad hominem attacks, etc.

This comes across as an effort to shut down discussion via ad hominem.

Right, and ad hominem attacks are OK if someone really doesn't get it?

Funny you mention ad hominem and targeting the question to me, implying that I use slurs and ad hominems.

That was not ad hominem, because what you wrote is indeed half-baked hackery.

For example if there was an ad hominem attack "Fuck you Ellen Pao." The auto moderator would allow the post but would highlight the text red with a small bubble identifying it as ad hominem, users could react appropriately.

"Professionalism" is expressing yourself without using ad hominem attacks or insults.

> you're the one pulling an ad-hominem on the police While I agree with much of the rest of what you right in that comment, this is not accurate: overgeneralizing a negative stereotype of someone other than the other party in a debate isn't "pulling an ad hominem ".