I want to get a few opinions on this logical fallacy.
I don't think it is always a fallacy, because, yes, you should attack an argument or opinion, but in the end, a person came up with, or just uses, that argument or opinion and a personal attack doesn't seem so bad anymore, because, if an argument is attacked, isn't the person that used it attacked as well, even if only because he used that argument, and even if in a less direct manner?
And sometimes a person's conduct, or motives matter in a discussion and it changes their argument(s) or view on the situation - for example, hypocrisy - pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
So, are personal attacks understandable at any point in a conversation? What do the staff members of this forum think, since "Personal attacks are not allowed under any circumstance." (Guidelines)
Not really. Some arguments made are caused by lack of knowledge, so attacking the argument teaches instead of attacking the person which is denigrating.
If some fool wishes to continue harping on a fallacious point of view like some evangelistic christian bitch, then his point of view will be torn to shreds by the community.
If you can not use logic to assail the controversial argument, and you instead attack the person, you have lost.