Sort:  

Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious.

Equally an Ad hominem that isn't an insult when it is True

Canadian academic and author Douglas N. Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[26] as when it directly
involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

Wiki

Equally an Ad hominem that isn't an insult when it is True

Citation please.

Truth has no quality of Disrespect or Respect, which is what insults hinge on. If an ad hominem is True then it cannot be an insult, it can only be an observation.

So, if someone says, "I think you're a lying dog-faced pony-soldier", that's NOT an ad hominem attack in your opinion because it's "TRUE" (that person is presumably sincere)??

...and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,

The key problem here is that character is QUALITATIVE (GNOSIS).

The other key problem here is that motives are QUALITATIVE (GNOSIS).

And you seem to be glossing-over the point that even your source specifies "in SOme instances" (probably when the question tautologically involves questions of "character" and or "motive", of course under those conditions "character" and or "motive" would necessarily be relevant). HOWever, "character" and "motive" are both beyond our epistemological limits (un-quantifiable, self-reported, implicit, subconscious).

And your bald assertion that an ad hominem attack is not fallacious if it's "true" is not supported by any of your quoted sources.

The key problem here is that character is QUALITATIVE

Why is that a problem?

HOWever, "character" and "motive" are both beyond our epistemological limits (un-quantifiable, self-reported, implicit, subconscious).

Baloney

And your bald assertion that an ad hominem attack is not fallacious if it's "true" is not supported by any of your quoted sources.

What 'attack'? It's a god damn Ad Hominem, a type of Argument, and not necessarily a type of Flawed or False Argument. Ergo, it's not Fallacious if it is true, as the last quote explains.

The key problem here is that character is QUALITATIVE

Why is that a problem?

Because there is no way to QUANTIFY "character".

And without QUANTIFICATION there is no way to verify a claim's "TRUTH-VALUE".

...it's not Fallacious if it is true, as the last quote explains.

Your quote "explains" no such thing.

It simply asserts that in SOME cases, presumably if the subject at hand is specifically about a person's history and or personal choices, data relevant to such an inquiry CANNOT be considered off-limits.

HOweVer, I can't imagine a case where a person's history and or personal choices would be a subject of scrutiny wholly divorced from any explicit or implicit attack or endorsement of their abilities and or ideas WHOLESALE.

A "positive" ad hominem is just as fallacious as a "negative" ad hominem.

You shouldn't believe someone just because they're a doctor.

You shouldn't disbelieve someone just because they're a commie.

It simply asserts that in SOME cases, presumably if the subject at hand is specifically about a person's history and or personal choices, data relevant to such an inquiry CANNOT be considered off-limits.

It explains that an ad hominem isn't fallacious if the position the other has implicates their character/ motivations etc.

It's not about Positive or Negative or such value statements, it's about Correct or Incorrect reasoning, True or False argumentation.

You shouldn't believe someone just because they're a doctor.

You shouldn't disbelieve someone just because they're a commie.

I agree, claims should be examined by themselves but if the creed of the Doctor is to always obfuscate or lie/deceive then it would be difficult not to believe them, the same creed-o would dismiss the commie if that were the case.

I agree, claims should be examined by themselves

Well that's encouraging.

It explains that an ad hominem isn't fallacious if the position the other has implicates their character/ motivations etc.

The only "problem" being that you can never know "their character" or "motivations" etc, due to your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS.

And even the most morally repulsive, malevolent person can still make a perfectly valid logically sound statement.

Their moral repulsiveness and malevolence do not magically invalidate their logic.

And even the most morally repulsive, malevolent person can still make a perfectly valid logically sound statement.

Their moral repulsiveness and malevolence do not magically invalidate their logic.

It's not about their logic holding consistency, internally or otherwise, but about their Ability to characterize certain things that their very character will undoubtedly taint or cast doubt on. That's what I think you're being obtuse about, you think that it's a matter of pure Logic or Reasoning, but it's a matter of Precision, Accuracy, and above all else a matter of Ability to Judge Correctly, not just to judge Logically.

The only "problem" being that you can never know "their character" or "motivations" etc, due to your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS.

Nonsense. I don't need to "know" their character. I only need to Judge them based on what I know about them, however limited that may be, I don't need to know Everything to surmise their character, it might be more accurate but it can be done accurately without considering everything.

I only need to Judge them based on what I know about them,

I admire your faith in sample-bias.

...above all else a matter of Ability to Judge Correctly, not just to judge Logically.

Please teach me to "Judge Correctly" without logic.