Just saw it again in a forum where I have come to expect such things (which is why I don’t frequent the place but just drop by maybe once a month or so): some idiot making a false accusation of “ad hominem attack”. *sigh* I commented there and am cutting/pasting here, with redactions to obscure the original comments.
Saying, “You are a monster, therefore you believe such and so” is an ad hominem attack, because it falsely argues that the cause of a line of argument lies in the character of the arguer. While that may be the case, argument must be made against what a person asserts and not who the person is.
OTOH, saying, “You have done monstrous things, therefore you are a monster” is an arguable assertion and not an ad hominem attack.
And again, simply stating an opinion, based on observation of what someone has said and done that someone–based on the evidence in hand–is a dumbass, idiot, cretin, politician *spit* or some other derogatory appellation, is name-calling that does not fall under the rubric of “ad hominem fallacy” UNLESS it is presented as an argument attempting to refute another’s assertion. Such name-calling may be simply accurate labeling.
Since Mohamed, for example, did monstrous things and commanded that his followers do likewise, we can accurately label him as a monster, but any argument against his teachings must be based on what he said. Now, it may be possible to make the “monster Mohamed” argument against Islam, because Muslims are enjoined to look to Mohamed as the perfect man and to emulate his life. That being the case, we could, I suppose, legitimately argue that Islam is a monstrous hate cult based simply on the life of its founder, since ALL Muslim
Accuracy in labeling doesn’t have to equal ad hominem attacks.