Is it Ad Hominem when you are the topic being argued?

[Lemmingwise]

when I make an argument about myself, and you attack that argument, are you engaging in an ad hominem attack or not?

It's a moot point, because any argument about yourself is not going to be a meaningful discussion.

Well except to two parties: You, because we are all hopelessly self-obsessed, and others, probably only to have fun with insulting you.

If you want to have arguments that are worthwhile, you have to identify subjects that matter to lots of people. Like I could make an argument why women shouldn't work the first two years after being pregnant (infants do better when breastfed, infants that are babysat even 2 days a week at a children's creche exhibit all the negative symptoms that abandoned babies do). Now this would be an argument that could have some weight behind it. It changes something important. Someone could argue about my points brought forward, as well as the economic cost of a woman not furthering herself professionally for two years.

Arguments about entertainment? It's a little silly. Arguments about persons specifically? Bound to irrelevant.

So the real answer is that it doesn't matter whether it's ad hominem or not, it's not going to be a conversation of substance.

The only exception I can think of is maybe if it's about a choice you're making and the argument is with a friend or family member that loves you and the argument is underscored by the understanding that you both want the best for you.

edit: Oh, now I read the cause isn't for your own personal reason being concerned by ad hominem attack. I think in some advice to cows is intentional taunting rather than well-meaning advice. Like, you know the last person someone wants to take advice from is the person laughing in your face. Like for example the people that say that Sargon should only just do week in stupid in perpetuity or that Ralph only just had to be an IBS host, as if you could milk a stale concept endlessly. Most advice is a mix of taunting and exaggerating how easy things are for additional comedy.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Ad hominem is just when your argument is based on the person on the other side of the argument, rather than their argument.

Example:
Person 1: I think that if you mix equal parts black and white paint together you'll end up with some shade of grey paint.
Person 2: You would think that, you're the same idiot that tried to tell us mixing red and blue paint would make purple.

Ad hominem doesn't have to be untrue or an insult, or even make any damn sense. The mark of ad hominem is that the arguer is being attacked rather than the argument.

And even though it's a logical fallacy, in that the details about a person don't prove anything about their argument, there are times it gets in the way.

For example, let's say every single fucking day I call the cops and say my neighbor is spying on me, and he's stealing my mail.

Now my neighbor could turn his house upside down and record himself to prove I'm wrong, or he could maybe say "Come on, he's said that every fucking day and every time it's not true, why are you wasting my time?"

That's technically ad-hominem. His argument in no way proves he didn't spy on me and steal my shit. But it does provide a very good basis to believe I'm lying. He could instead make a new argument, my crazy neighbor is crazy, then what was ad hominem in the previous discussion becomes a relevant argument in the new one.

My being crazy doesn't have anything to do with whether the neighbor stole my shit. But my being crazy is a very logical reason for the police not to waste their time on my crazy accusations.

Now I have surpassed the OP in autism, and thus I win. That's the rules for deep thoughts, right?