What conclusion can be drawn from a discussion that devolves into “you can’t believe what a former alcoholic says?”

The conclusion that can be drawn from a discussion that devolves into the assertion that “you can’t believe what a former alcoholic says” exemplifies the Ad Hominem fallacy. In this context, the argument attacks the character or circumstances of the individual—a former alcoholic—rather than addressing the merits of their statements or opinions.

Ad Hominem arguments shift the focus away from the topic at hand and undermine the credibility of the person making the argument based solely on who they are rather than what they are saying. This approach distracts from the actual discussion, leading to a dismissal of the arguments presented by the former alcoholic without engaging with the content of their claims or evidence. In this way, the discussion is derailed and becomes focused on the individual's past rather than on the validity of their current perspective.