Ad Hominem Arguments Revisited

You might recall my earlier post regarding ad hominem arguments. I made the point that "[t]he 'chickenhawk' style of argument is merely a superficial trap to bait targeted individuals into giving equally superficial answers."

Over at DailyKos we're unfortunately seeing the same thing again, with the same results. We've seen it before. Typical scenario: a few young war-proponents give apparently superficial excuses for not enlisting, opposition ensues. Of course, it is extremely easy to discredit someone in the public's emotional opinion by having them give a "lame excuse." The only difficulty here is for the discredited to try and remain credible in the public's opinion (not that such an effort is always noble, I concede).

But is it really logical to make this leap: the hesitation that young war-supporters have morally--or even logically--demonstrates the war's lack of foundation. Perhaps, if one's basis is moral relativism. Simply put: the debate doesn't even consider natural or absolute truths, only the relative authority of people to hold their own opinions. Sadly, it seems the only consistency in that argument is an adherence to moral relativism.