Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Burnt Hill wrote:I have always considered ad hominen and personal attacks - insults - as synonyms, while I have a hard time wrapping my head around the distinction,
I do realize it is there. I suppose its safe to say both are unacceptable. The continuing problem for me is my expectation for zero tolerance of both,
while the "mods" insist on making "judgement" calls I feel are unnecessary. There should also be clear consequences. The attack itself could be blacked out, the entire post could be deleted, repeated offense could result in suspensions. I don't know, it almost seems silly, but it is important to have clear guidelines and equal enforcement. It is a sore spot that a lot of us are increasingly aware of - I don't know if it is because personal attacks have increased (I don't think they have), or there is a group sensitivity for arcane reasons. but it does exist.
Bruce Dazzling wrote:In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.
compared2what? » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:28 am wrote:
Hey, Bruce --
About this:
Bruce Dazzling wrote:In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.
You're a mod. And you're effectively replying to questions from me and OP ED -- two posters who habitually express themselves in civil terms, btw -- about what does and doesn't constitute off-limits usage by saying:I find it very interesting to note that OP ED and c2w are so invested in defending personal attacks.
.
I really mean it when I say that's ad hominem.
compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:Bruce Dazzling wrote:In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.
That too is ad hominem, in that it suggests I'm saying what I'm saying for a personal reason.
compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:Stopping the name-calling is fine with me. But I still both want and need an index of prohibited words and terms, if that's what we're doing. Because my understanding of what is and isn't a clearly offensive usage differs from yours. You're the boss. And I wish both to comprehend and comply.
I have no other motive, reason or agenda. Please advise.
Canadian_watcher » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:49 am wrote:compared2what? » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:28 am wrote:
Hey, Bruce --
About this:
Bruce Dazzling wrote:In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.
You're a mod. And you're effectively replying to questions from me and OP ED -- two posters who habitually express themselves in civil terms, btw -- about what does and doesn't constitute off-limits usage by saying:I find it very interesting to note that OP ED and c2w are so invested in defending personal attacks.
.
I really mean it when I say that's ad hominem.
I really mean it when I say that is not ad hominem.
In order for it to qualify it would have to be using a sleight against your character (veiled or flagrant) in order to discredit an argument. What Bruce said doesn't seem to do that (nor does what I said).
Observations about what someone is clearly doing is not an ad hominem attack anymore than your argument right there is.
barracuda » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:23 pm wrote:I find it very interesting to note just which posters on this thread display unseemly eagerness to capitulate to authoritarian decisions regarding their uses of mundane vocabulary. Not surprising, but interesting.
Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:20 am wrote:compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:Bruce Dazzling wrote:In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.
That too is ad hominem, in that it suggests I'm saying what I'm saying for a personal reason.
No, I didn't suggest that you were saying anything for a personal reason. I have zero idea why you, or anybody else, for that matter, say anything, and I'm not in the business of trying to divine your intentions.
I said what I said (the part you quoted above) because I am literally shocked that we're still debating this point, which, again, arose due to my suspension of barracuda for two days for calling another poster a dickhead.
There's no good reason, none, for any of us to engage in name-calling. It's childish and counter-productive, so just don't do it.
compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:Stopping the name-calling is fine with me. But I still both want and need an index of prohibited words and terms, if that's what we're doing. Because my understanding of what is and isn't a clearly offensive usage differs from yours. You're the boss. And I wish both to comprehend and comply.
I have no other motive, reason or agenda. Please advise.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
Canadian_watcher » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:19 pm wrote:this is even more clear
and funnier, too:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Return to The Jeff Wells Rules
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests