 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 6, 2009 at 01:33:30
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/6/09: by Rady Ananda Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
9
5
5
The relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.1 Most debates on the internet are of "very low quality."2 They fail logically. They often devolve into abusive rants. This deters members from posting comments or articles. It destroys community. It also defeats the beauty of debate and dissent. As this forum encourages debate, we want our comments to be "above the fray." The ideas presented below are a small sampling of the discussion on ad hominem attacks that can be found on the web. "An [ad hominem] argument is based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; [it is] a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack."3 "An argument that is ad hominem is one that has deviated from the claims being made and has instead focused on the person making the claims."4 
"The abusive ad hominem is not just a case of directing abusive language toward another person. . . . The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument.
"Although some faulty arguers may call attention to distasteful features of their opponents in order to manipulate the responses of their audience, most abusers apparently believe that such characteristics actually provide good reasons for ignoring or discrediting the arguments of those who have them. Logically, of course, the fact that any of these characteristics might fit an opponent provides no reason to ignore or discredit his or her arguments or criticisms." 5
People's motives, their intelligence, their race, party affiliation, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, employer, etc. is irrelevant to the debate. Commenting on someone's features – whether true or not – misdirects the audience through potent insults in an illogical attempt to discredit the ideas put forth. Just because someone is "stupid" does not mean the argument has no merit. That's a logical fallacy. By hurling insults, questioning the person's motives, or employer, you engage in ad hominem attacks.
But, this is only the most obvious form of ad hominem attacks. They can be subtle, too.
"[Another] manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?""Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid."6
Keeping the bolded part in mind makes it easy to recognize whether a comment is ad hominem or valid. Here are some more forms of argumentum ad hominem:
When you try to "persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:
Watch when making "you" statements. 'You' or 'your' is a tip-off you're about to personalize something.'It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes.'
"This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:
'Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white.'
"This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as 'poisoning the well.'
It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make."7
"[T]he truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it."8
San Jose State University characterizes the most frequent ad hominem appeals as attacks on:
1 | 2
more...The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 156 comments |
|
Sad that so many need to hear this
Thank you for "ad hominem 101." It is hardly possible online to register an opinion or response, make an ancillary point, etc., without expecting to incur beside-the-point attacks, depressingly common on this site as on others. They often take the form, "The idiot you cite is a cretinous troglodyte. You should have your head examined for thinking such drivel." I've taken to letting the dialogue end there, rather than trying to alert the reactor to her or his fallacy, regardless of opinions about the authority to which I referred. Others can take up the cudgel, is my reluctant but eventual attitude. Thank you for chasing down the documentation as well. "Verrrry interesting." Best -- the editor person by editnetwork (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 73 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:56:33 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: it's a daily phenom
It's disgusting - I'm sorry you've come to expect it. There's an interesting NYTimes article (don't have my research with me right now) that wonders if our entire culture has turned mean and ugly. The writer compares modern day political analysis to that of 100 years ago - it's shocking how rude we are today. I have to say in doing the research for this, I learned much. The more subtle forms, like saying, 'Stalin would agree with this' - I had no idea that statement fell within the bounds of ad hominem attacks. (And I've made that statement - about government choice of computers to vote on.) What reached me was the idea: Even Hitler would agree 2+2=4. Please keep on posting; OEN editors are looking at this topic with a focused eye and hope to change this. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:51:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Historic Record
While I applaud your call to improve the quality of debate, I think you are on rather shaky ground when you suggest it was higher in the past than now. If anything, today's exchanges seem tame compared to those of the 18th and 19th centuries in the US. I would suggest reading "American Aurora" by Richard N. Rosenfeld. Rosenfeld's book contains hundreds of direct quotes from books, newspapers, pamphlets and letters from the late 1700s and early 1800s wherein the ad hominem attack was the norm. I do not know the author nor do I have any financial interest in the book or publisher, but I consider his book perhaps the finest history of that period. From Amazon's listing: "Amazon.com Review One of the central difficulties with understanding our present circumstances arises from the distortion, often deliberate, of the historic record. I would urge you to read this book because I think you will not only greatly enjoy it, but it will help correct what I believe to be a misimpression on your part. by William White (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 78 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:04:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: thanks for the heads up
there's a single maxim in the field of investigations: corrobate assertions with independent sources. My impression of earlier political analysis (stemming from a NYTimes article) being overturned by an independent source supports the maxim, once again. yes, this sounds like a fascinating read to me; thanks for bringing it up, William: "American Aurora" by Richard N. Rosenfeld contains hundreds of direct quotes from books, newspapers, pamphlets and letters from the late 1700s and early 1800s wherein the ad hominem attack was the norm. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:29:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Be Aware Of This, However....
...from my logic professor at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo: "An argument is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false." [ed. at the same time] So while the famous "Socrates is a man" syllogism qualifies as a "valid" argument, so does the following exceptionally unsound argument: "Jeremy is a man. Jeremy is not a man. Therefore the Moon is made of green cheese." Professor Frederick J. O'Toole may still be teaching Philosophy of Science courses in SLO town, but I have to credit him with bringing to light, for me, the importance of the soundness of an argument, in addition to its validity. Our final included several passages from Joseph Heller's Catch-22, where we had to determine the validity of the arguments in several of Heller's passages. An argument's soundness is the slippery slope upon which many ad hominem attacks are built. Contradictory premises will always delineate "valid" argument forms, strictly speaking, because it is NOT possible for the premises to be true. Since this is the case, the logical AND in the definition, "...and the conclusion false," is superfluous in determining the logical truth of the definition. Such are the limitations of languages as the maps of reality. We believe we know when an argument seems to be valid, but communicating that fact in a logically coherent fashion can be both an art and a science. As much as I would appreciate a return to the days where the examination of argument validity was limited to the divination of logical fallacies inherent in an arguer's statements, human language can still be made into a club with which to bludgeon an opponent. Therefore, it might be optimal to establish a verbal or nonverbal contract with any opponent, apriori, that the purpose of your interaction will be the pursuit of truth as best the limits of language will allow. That way, if either party ventures into the land of the ad hominem during the course of the debate, they can be sanctioned in some manner that deprecates their offending statements and re-levels the playing field. While it may not appear to be valid to suggest that I am intolerant of intolerance, it is still the case that this is a perfectly reasonable stance to adopt. In the outer regions of the English language, I am simply intolerant of Buckley-esque bullies and other examples of ideological boorishness. If my objective is assummed to be communication, I should never be permitted, without some sanction, to use language as a blunt instrument because that has never been the intent of language in the first place. With the advent of "conservatives without conscience," the entanglement of premises, assumptions and conclusions expressed with verbal force has only one true purpose: to stun one's opponent long enough to assert both the validity and the soundness of one's argument for political gain with an ignorant audience. The truth is that conservatives without conscience represent a breed of human beings whose purpose is self destructive and ideologically internecine. Their justification for this behavior is coached in time and its assummed terminal point, which is simply an appeal to realistic or unrealistic fears and not human communication. by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:33:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: you're on the right target
Thanks Richard - this is exactly where the topic leads. I've written to a professor for permission to repost his summary of various logical fallacies - it's a fantastic piece that, if studied, would improve the writing of many of us. It's one of the clearest and easiest to understand. When (if) it gets posted to OEN, I'd welcome your reaction. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:55:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I wish it were possible to make this a conservative
versus liberal issue but one tour of Dailykos and the remarks there on serious diaries would disabuse you of that. Do personalized responses show up particularly when assumptions are being unsettled? I liked this article a lot because I have had no way to respond other than ignoring people, taking them seriously which often leads further off course or mentioning they are off topic. I can cite this article, now. In a way, it reminds me of an article I read on Buddhism and "right speech." http://www.intrex.net/chzg/pat28.htm Rady Ananda, thank you for an excellent article. by Linn Cohen-Cole (76 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 189 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:18:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: enlightening article on kindness & compassion
thanks for sharing it, Lynn. (and thanks for the kudos, too ;-) something else happens, too, when practicing Right Speech - you come to abhor abusive speech - gossip, name-calling, etc. It's just not funny. And that really kills television for you. I'm gonna study this piece more - thanks again. oh, and thank you so much for the farm articles - very educational and enlightening. What's happened and is still happening in the corporate war to take over everything is a topic that needs dozens more writers to cover. It's huge. thanks for keeping at it. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:54:46 AM (0+)
|
|
thanks for the reminder Rady
Naturally, people that comment on sites such as oped have very strong opinions on issues. I certainly do. There have been posts I've made, that as soon as I hit "send", I realize I shouldn't have. I really do feel bad afterwards when I get too snarky. Sometimes it's so frustrating to not get a point across that the frustration takes over your common sense and sense of fair debate. But we are all humans with emotions and it's gonna happen from time to time. There are some though that do seem to comment simply to agitate others. (just like at protests) The thing that works best for me when that happens is to simply step away from the keyboard for a while. by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:00:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: good suggestion, Jersey Girl
(taking time out - sleeping on it, before posting a comment) it's tough; I know. But I really believe that we are ambassadors of Leftist thought - and as such, we need to stay above the fray. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:03:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Curious
No attack meant but two questions: 1) Who are ambassadors of "leftist" thought? 2) Since when are those who are "leftist" inclined somehow above the fray? Thanks. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:49:08 PM (0+)
|
|
I don't know why I should listen to some women with short ..
... white hair, that lives in some liberal state, who is going to school? If you're still going to school it probably means you still have things to learn. Point taken ... I'll try to be a good boy in the future. : - / by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:18:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: thanks for your help, Mr M
there are some key people with influence who can lead the debate above the fray. and on a personal note: school starts tomorrow!!!! I'm outa here for awhile. play nice ;-) by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:58:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: you'll be missed ...
try to drop in between studies by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:50:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: i always thought
her hair was blonde. by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 721 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:57:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: meryl
Let's call it platinum blonde :) by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:35:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: whatever it is
it's a lovely shade! ;-) by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 721 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:36:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: don't be silly ...
... everyone knows blondes are dumb, and Rady is not dumb ... by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:04:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: you and your iron-clad scientific reasoning...
I'm speechless by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 721 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:35:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: you're all so silly
lemme fess up (shhh); that bio pic is 5 yrs old. this is what I really look like: by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:01:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mice don't live as long as five years.
You'd be the Methusala of mice. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:59:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: lovely
shade of brown by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 721 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:09:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Where'd You Get Your Nails Done??
...MY what a beautiful home! by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:25:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ROFLMAO
you all crack me up - out loud laughing... living 900 years now, while it may be a lovely shade of brown, this is actually a "black rat" nails: ROFL! by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:45:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well at least your ears are still the same ...
... glad you lost the facial hair though. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:36:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: hee
::giggle:: Adorable. ...I have a friend who'd probably love to meet you. Big green eyes, red hair, loves sushi.... by Jennifer Hathaway (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 758 comments [220 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:25:33 PM (0+)
|
|
thanx Rady
I can't say that I understood this well-written article of yours, but then I hope I don't violate the principles contained here either. I believe that I am a searcher for truth. For me that seems to be enough. I have always personally appreciated your help at oped.com and I know your editing will be missed. Good luck on your new venture in learning. I know you will be back to inform and share your new insights and knowledge. by Suzana Megles (66 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 363 comments [43 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:30:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: you have a gift for writing, Suzana
I hope you keep at it. I wish I could write as simply and succinctly as you do. thx for the kudos... by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:15:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Sincere beliefs
It took me a while to realize that people sincerely believe things that seem ridiculous. They're not crazy, stupid, just playing devils advocate, nor are they CIA plants. (I was once accused of being the last on this website.) Many people hide behind the ad hominem when they lack the moral courage to face facts: The enemy is not refuted: enough to unmask him as a bourgeois.[7] Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person. Few have been able to withstand such tactics. Few indeed have been courageous enough to oppose Socialism with that remorseless criticism which it is the duty of the scientific thinker to apply to every subject of inquiry. by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:36:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: spooks, goons and guerrillas
I've been accused of all manner of things - at times, it's hysterical. I agree with a part of your sentence, "Many people hide behind the ad hominem when they lack [facts or a well reasoned argument to support their claim or to refute the other's]." by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:21:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: EXCUSE ME
Did not Mr. Wolfe just commit an ad hominem attack on all Marxists using the subterfuge of a quote from Von Mises? by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:06:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: YOU'RE EXCUSED
There's nothing ad hominem about the quote. Von Mises was just pointing out the methods used to avoid serious debate. by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:52:49 PM (0+)
|
|
The new debating paradign
You are so right in this Rady, kudos for bringing up this subject. What we see now is that ad hominem's usually dominate debate. We see it on TV, and we especially hear it on talk radio. On neocon forum sites, that is virtually THE ONLY kind of arguments you can see (my God, go to one some time and be prepared to be angry for at least a week, lol) . What is so disgusting about this, is that young people see this and believe that it is the proper way to debate. I believe that ad hominem's should be addressed directly whenever they appear; as well as the other forms of sophistic manipulation such as straw men and red herrings. This constant calling-out will strip the user of their "favorite" tactics, and help the audience to see the manipulations. Debate arguments should always be made with facts, ideas, and reason.... Not sputim, acid, and smoke. Another problem i often see with forum debate is that the participants tend to take the replies personally. This is of course "natural"; however a serious debater should always understand that both the replies and their own comments MUST be aimed at the audience at large.... Not the opponent specifically. Understand that every well-made debate point is a challenge.. And another opportunity to give your own. This is how you win debates... It is often a battle of attrition. And oddly enough it is also the way to silence trolls and shills: Once they realize that every vitrolic comment just brings back more calm, logical, well-crafted points in return... They will cut their losses and quit (the smarter ones, anyway lol). by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:45:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: excellent; points well taken
what I may not have made clear in the article, you fixed in your comment. thanks, Steve. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:35:06 AM (0+)
|
|
I agree
and my response turned out to be so long, I made it into a diary--> http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=11514 by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:55:42 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: interesting ideas
thanks for posting them, Steve. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:37:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Great Post
I confess to straying into the ad hominem at times, usually unintentionally and on subjects that evoke a visceral reaction. I don't mean to, but it happens. Having said that, we liberals must recognize that the Conservatives and Reactionaries use the said technique to maximum effectiveness. And they are all to often successful with it. Remember that people tend to be conservative with a small 'c'. The don't like to change, don't want to change and will resist unless something hits them at a visceral level. Unfortuantely that is all too often the ad hominem argument. The rough and tumble of everyday politics does not serve as an ideal forum for the debating society niceties. And, yes, I know how arrogant this sounds on two levels. First, it is arrogant to propose that only the gifted intelligentsia are smart enough to understand and respond to reasoned argument. It ignores the existance of a common inate intellegence and/or cunning in the public to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Second, it is arrogant to use that line of reasoning as an excuse for laziness. Resorting to the ad hominem is lazy and it works in the short term. But eventually events overtake you and comes the firestorm. Witness 2008. So thanks for the very kind and gentle reminder to lay off, Rady. Sometimes it takes being forcefully kicked in the seat to get our attention. by James Hadstate (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 42 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:09:54 AM (0+)
|
|
from a veteran-contributor
I reserve my right to attack any public figure when I want to state my arrgument in any way I see fit. I also reserve the right to define certain groups of people as Stalinists, Nazis, cereal rapists, etc,. etc, whatever I want! That said I always used and will use that right only when it comes to the known public figures and/or dead public figures but never against the opponent as and individual, the one on whose article I comment. I reserve the right at the same time to express the statement about the visible trait of the opponent's cognitive process, in this case as an individual if and only if that trait is is the proper explanation (as I see it) of what opponent represents in his/her views. The only duty I have to comply to is absence of malice and so far that what I followed. As for the statement that we are not in the bar. I consider that we here are expressing opinions. Nobody pays us for those. Opinions, no matter how tough ARE the main products here, THEY are valuable and not the factoids. I study human characters here and opinions I seek. As such I expect that we all are adults and PROVIDED ABSENCE OF MALICE anything should go. As an example: A statement about an author that he/she exhibits Stalinist views with the proper explanation of the analogy is perfectly OK with me. The statement that he/she is a 'Corporate Shill' or, on the contrary ' Al- Qaeda operative' is from my point of view a malicious one- a provocation with the intent to harm a person and thus unacceptable. Eat your checkers. I can say and I will say that Clintonians are traitors and I do not see any malice on my part here. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:19:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mark, I may agree with your remark about the "clintonians"
but how is calling them traitors different than calling someone a corporate shill? There certainly are plenty of corporate shills in govt as well as traitors. Calling them traitors could be true OR just your opinion according to someone else's point of view. Same as the use of corporate shill to describe a politician. by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:00:37 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mea culpa
I need to explain: I am perfectly OK if someone calls Clinitonians corporate shills as they are. What I am not Ok with if some author of the article/comment is called that way. Such definition of the opponent is malicious- we all know that real shills do not give a damn about us and would not spend their precious time on our site where they get no benefit of any kind. Also, we all are shills a little bit- most of us work for corporations, whether we like it or not. Bottomline- absence of malice means in my book no intention to make an opednews author/opponent to feel harmed. But I swear to God that does not apply in my book to the public figures- they don't give a damn about us so why should I bother about their well-being? by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:07:20 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: thanks for clearing that up mark :)
I agree wholeheartedly.. by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:21:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: cereal rapists?
I'm sorry Mark. I'm sure you meant serial rapists, not people who force wheaties, cheerios or Corn Flakes to engage in non-consensual sex-- with or without milk. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:29:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: REALLY?
How disappointing. I was just contemplating the whole idea of the "cereal rapist." It was opening all kinds of creative doors for me. I love a good pun. Damn. by Paula Sayles (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 204 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:01:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Just the tip of the rhetorical iceberg
A very important post, Rady. Thank you. Note that Mr. Volaar's comments pertain to the validity of an argument (deduction, formal logic), while Rady's comments address the soundness, or truth, of an argument's separate propositions (inductive logic, rhetorical analysis). The ad hominem fallacy is one of many fallacies, the understanding of which is essential to critical thinking and coherent argumentation. For those who want to sharpen their rhetorical analysis skills, I highly recommend Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric by Howard Kahane & Nancy Cavender. This is as complete a survey of informal logic as I've seen. Now in its tenth edition, I used an early edition in college in 1975 and it has served me extremely well. Appeal to authority, straw man, false dilemma, begging the question, questionable premise, suppressed evidence, two wrongs make a right, irrelevant reason, appeal to ignorance, hasty conclusion, questionable cause... These are some of the fallacies discussed in three chapters of Fallacious Reasoning. Also included are chapters on Good and Bad Reasoning, Background Beliefs and World Views, Language, Evaluating Extended Arguments, Managing the News, and Textbooks: Managing World Views. I give the book six stars out of five. by Jim Eldon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 253 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:30:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: thanks for the book recommendation
It sounds perfect. I forever confuse inductive and deductive reasoning... (no, don't try to explain; my hands are over my ears and I'm singing LA LA LA LA LA real loud) lol... okay, give it a shot by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:09:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You can read my diary entry
called ' Cereal Rapists' in my diaries' page I invented the definition:) by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:00:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I like Cheerios ...
... they got holes in em ... getting them fo fit is another thing ... sorry for that visual, I promise not to make a cartoon out of this ... by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:00:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Opednews relies on unpaid editors which are not all equally
skilled at being editors. The reason I don't post articles only diaries and comments is that I am not willing to risk having what I write in an honest attempt to communicate with others filtered through a third party editor I don't know and who I think may not be able to understand it or that might change it through editing badly. Recently I have been impressed at what seems to me to have been an improvement in the general tenor of the discourse and in the way people treat each other and it seemed to me that folks like Mr M are adding more value to the content of the discussions because they were tolerated not banned despite occassionally in the past having crossed the line. My interest in opednews is mostly about politics. I criticise people like Rob Kall and Steven Leser sometimes personally because I think they could and should personally do better. I risk banning every time I do it. That is a risk I will continue to run on my judgement at my risk until I am banned or decide the forum is too restrictive to persist with. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:16:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Interesting, I exercise editorial powers so rarely...
I am actually surprised many here even know I am an associate editor. It is one of my New Year's Resolutions to help out more with the queue and other similar duties around here. My main thought about the ad-hominem fallacy is that no member of OEN should be subject to abuse. Most if not all of the comments I have deleted or hidden crossed the line in that regard, whether it was against myself or someone else. I agree about the use of hide. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:05:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I have to agree with you ... doh!
You do use your editorial powers rarely. Let's see if I can construct a logical non ad-hominem argument around that point. A poor lawyer would use his editorial skills instead of arguing a point. A confident lawyer would post a comment and argue a point instead. A lawyer is confident if he has good legal skills. Therefore, a lawyer who uses his editorial skills rarely has good legal skills. Dang, and I tend to disagree with you frequently! I hope that doesn't mean I'm always wrong. by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:19:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Interesting Observation
However, I have written a few articles for OpEd and not one has been changed so that I felt my ideas or opinions had been done a disservice. Having done some editing in the past, I always felt it was my job to help the writer speak his mind in the clearest and most concise way. I never changed what anyone was trying to say; just helped them to say it more clearly. Maybe you should give it a chance and see the ways in which an editor can actually help your writing. by Paula Sayles (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 204 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:58:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Baloney Detector
For those interested in the common fallacies of debate, check out the 'Baloney Detection Kit' at www.Skeptic.com which includes Carl Sagan's 'Ten Tools for Baloney Detection' and 'How Thinking Goes Wrong; the 25 Fallacies of Thought'. I've been tempted many times to send copies out as gifts. To members of Congress and the Supreme Court, f'rinstance... by DC Rapier (28 articles, 73 quicklinks, 56 diaries, 114 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:40:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: another good link(s)
thanks, DC ~ we need them here, too! by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:33:46 PM (0+)
|
|
the umbrella is too wide
Rady, I couldn't agree more with the idea that in debate and discourse (on OEN and elsewhere), ideas should be the focus, not the person espousing them. I would also add that civil arguments are much more likely to be read and accepted, because our biological and psychological response to being attacked is either fight (attack back) or flight (avoid information), neither of which is likely to achieve what I assume we all want -- the acceptance of our arguments. However, I posit that the source of information is not only relevant but is a critical part of the context. None of us has the ability to check all the "facts" asserted by various writers or commentators. If I know a particular topic well, I can refute a factually incorrect argument. But if the topic is relatively unfamiliar to me, then I check the source of the information. Ideally, factual claims would be referenced. If they are, I can examine the original source. If the "facts" come from peer-reviewed journals, respected journalists, or from parties who don't clearly have something to gain from the argument, I am much more likely to accept it. On the other hand, if the source is anonymous, is associated with groups or activities known to distort the truth (e.g., Holocaust denial), or otherwise has something to gain from the argument, I am likely to be highly skeptical. Thus, I am not likely to find much credence in a study about smoking funded by the tobacco industry (one of your examples), because the tobacco industry has 1) previously deceived the public and 2) clearly has a great deal to gain from its "findings". My point is that examining the source of information is not only legitimate, it is necessary. This doesn't mean that I condone name-calling or ad hominim attacks. I don't. I just think that you're being unnecessarily broad in what you're considering an ad hominem attack. Where it really gets fuzzy is when authors don't provide citations for their "factual" assertions. Unfortunately, this is all too common. In such cases, all the reader can do is to try to examine the motives of the author him/her-self. Unfortunately, often times the author bios provide little information. This still doesn't excuse name-calling or mean-spiritedness, but I can understand readers' desire to "categorize" the writer in order to evaluate the legitimacy of the argument. In summary, I would humbly ask writers and commentators on this website to do two things, in addition to avoiding ad hominem attacks: 1. Provide citations for factual claims 2. Provide enough information in your bio for readers to know where you're coming from. by Mikhail Lyubansky (15 articles, 11 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:50:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I disagree...
as distasteful as I find that part of their beliefs, the fact that someone is a holocaust denier doesnt mean they are wrong about everything. Understand that I am saying this as the son of a survivor. There are those here at OEN who I have regular and heated disagreements, but I try to read everything they write as if it was the first time I am reading them and if I agree I say so. Even if you think someone is the smartest and most honest writer you have ever read, it doesnt mean they cannot be wrong about a particular topic. The best thing to do is read, and then research and verify. Most of my articles are typically heavily laden with links that back up my points. I do this exactly because I do not believe in relying on reputation or anything similar for credibility (or lack of it). by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:14:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The messenger is part of the message
Look at it this way, Steve. Say you have a few symptoms (a nagging cough and a headache). You describe them to a friend (without medical training) and later to a doctor. They each offer an opinion and both back up their opinion with evidence that they believe to be valid. Do you give each person's opinion equal weight? Maybe you do, after all, you might trust your friend, but isn't it legitimate to consider the source of the information. More to your point, say you need some piece of information and decide to ask your colleagues. Two individuals volunteer an answer. One has consistedly lied to you and made up "facts" (about other things). The other has proved to be a woman of her word and a reliable source of information. Do you give both answers equal weight? I sure don't. There are consequences to lying. Not being believed in future interactions is one of them. by Mikhail Lyubansky (15 articles, 11 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:27:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Give this idea some more thought, Mikhail
The definition of Argumentum ad Hominem refutes your assertion. All I can do is repeat the definition, Mikhail. All of us have biases. To allow our biases to preclude us from weighing an argument on its merits, instead preferring to weigh irrelevant features like who’s making the argument and why, is illogical. And, that is the very definition of ad hominem – you are going after the person instead of the argument. “If the ‘facts’ come from peer-reviewed journals, respected journalists, or from parties who don't clearly have something to gain from the argument, I am much more likely to accept it.” Your bias here is not logical. All the definitions in my article, and further discussion asserted in the comments explain why. I urge you read them again. It is not logical to condemn an argument based on who made it, or their motives in making it. That is the definition; whether you agree to abide or not. The argument is valid (or invalid) on its own merit, regardless of who makes it or what their motives are. When you bring in your own bias against the person making an argument, and use that bias to judge the argument, you engage in ad hominem thinking, which is illogical. Even if you are civil enough not to use abusive language to refute an argument, but you question the motives of the argument maker, this is an ad hominem attack, by definition. I didn’t make this up – this is logic. And every single source on the subject repeats this idea. A truck got stuck under a bridge. All the engineers came down and looked and pondered and debated what to do. A little 12-year old girl looked at the situation and said, “Why don’t you let the air out of the tires?” It doesn’t matter who she is or what her education is; it doesn’t matter if she stands to gain or not from how quickly or whether they resolve the situation. All of these outside issues are irrelevant to whether or not her argument is valid. Instead of looking at the person filtered thru your biases, look at the argument filtered thru your powers of deductive (or inductive as the case may be) thinking. The features of the messenger are irrelevant to the validity of the message, except in some circumstances (e.g., there are no facts being asserted that you can check). Please, read some of the sources cited.... after all, they're PhDs who have studied this issue; experts on logical fallacy. In using the medical doctor example, the question is: Has the medical doctor's advice worked in the past? Has your friend's advice worked in the past? In this way, you are not engaging in illogical, ad hominem thinking. In this way, rather than relying on the features or personal attributes of the messenger, you are just looking at the factual supports of an argument. In fact, science advances when we ask these questions. Otherwise, we'd still be using leeches to cure what ails us. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:36:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: umbrella is logically as wide as it needs to be
Mikhail, thanks for your thoughtful comments. See p. 2, where the objection you raise is considered in detail. "Consider the source" is logically valid in certain circumstances. And I wholeheartedly agree that any opinion piece (from a non expert) is bolstered by providing sources for all asserted facts. But, I like experts to cite their sources, too, because if they don't, they open themselves to ad hominem scrutiny which may unfairly detract from the validity of their argument. Everyone should cite their sources. Hopefully, we can get some pieces on logical fallacies, and many commenters above have already suggested extra reading. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:06:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: no argument here
I like experts to cite their sources too. Did I say anything to suggest the contrary? This is a rich discussion. I'm glad you got it going. by Mikhail Lyubansky (15 articles, 11 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:30:06 PM (0+)
|
|
mea culpa
Luckily, and I sincerely mean it, I have a lot of editors to remind me when I act like equine nether region anatomical parts. I'm going to try to rein in a bit, since I've been asking the same of others. My apologies if I've come on too strong, especially, recently, to Richard Mynick. I'm deleting a comment I made to him the other day. It was ad hominem and below where I want to go. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:08:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: As Rady suggests in Steven's related thread why not
hide rather than delete? Hiding is recoverable in the event of a mistake. Keeping comments rather than deleting them gives additional accountability for really bad behavior like slander or crimes. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:37:37 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: big bear
Hey Rob ~ Since you've gone to bat for me more than once, I wholly appreciate how bear-like you can be... I've seen you in action. You're an admirable man doing an amazing piece of work here. When they write the books about this era, OEN will figure prominently as one of the greatest forums where the common folk found voice. Just so know what I think... ;-) by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:57:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hey!!! Who you calling "common folk"!!!
Ad Hominem! Ad Hominem! There's nothing "common" about me! I'm as abnormal as they get! by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:12:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: who wants to be normal?
Ever since college, when I figured out that I was not a part of the norm and proud of it, I started saying I was Norbal. Vive la difference...s.! by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:30:46 PM (0+)
|
|
I haven't read this closely, but I almost feel
it's directed at me. Let me ask you, Rady and Rob. Is telling someone that they are making a stupid argument the same (ad hominem-wise) as telling them they are stupid? That asked, I know I fly off the handle and insult people; I try to control it, and if you read my profile, of if you have read it in the past, you may have noticed I say (said), I indulge in internet communications too much and should be working on re-writing old pieces. That, indeed, was a quite truthful statment - and, like my posting pictures and excerpts from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary, shows how hard I try to avoid the problem of offending others with my writings. It's a lot easier for some folks than for others. by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:43:54 AM (0+)
|
|
I imagine I'm a Richard Noggin myself...
now and then, and I even confess to agreeing with The Big Richard (Cheney), when he said "FU" on the Senate floor, then later explained "It felt good." So sure, ad hominem attacks can feel good, but they lead nowhere except to further division and end of dialogue. A few points I try to remember when writing, which may be of help to others: 1) Is the statement (yours or another's) TRUE or FALSE? 2) Regarding other writers you may not personally like, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. 3) If you have some doubts about what you're posting for the world to see, sleep on it. 4) Your worst enemy may be your best teacher. 4) Don't drink and write; or if you do drink and write, delete when done. by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:50:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Nothing wrong with attacking
Just make sure you attack what's being said and not the individual. The individual is not the problem. The person stating it probably said what he or she said with good logic or reason. It may be bad logic or reason to you. Expose that by dissecting the argument made. This is how discourse can be kept fruitful. This is how the deliberation and synthesis of ideas can be kept from being reduced to dialogue you might hear at a playground between two rival schoolyard bullies. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:57:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "The individual is not the problem." Sometimes they ARE
There has been times when articles written by John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler have appeared on Opednews as though those authors had posted them directly rather than that someone else had submitted them. If John Conyers turns up in a forum explaining what a great job he is doing choosing deck chair colors for the titanic and it essentially trying to redirect criticism then it is entirely appropriate to take the opportunity to speak to him about more important duties like defending the Constitution that he is not doing. Its also entirely appropriate to criticise editors and principles of sites for misleading readers that they have patrons they don't have. Its a dis-service to readers to mislead them that they are communicating with an author and sometimes it can be a dis-service to the writer who might have gotten feedback in another forum from the reader. Sometimes the individual responsible IS the problem. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:13:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Agree but
For people like Conyers, the best criticism is criticism that is directed at his actions. His inaction exemplifies a high level of complicity. The individual can be a problem. But, to personally attack may not yield the results one wants. I maintain actions and arguments are worthy of criticism, not the person. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:49:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "to personally attack may not yield the results one wants"
True personal attacks on the character or behavior of others in communities are definately risky to the one making them and they certainly can and do backfire when the community learns they are not justified but communities are not just about evaluating the merits of intellectual argument and being above the fray. Human communities don't exist in ivory towers looking down with detachment on the fray they exist IN THE FRAY. If someone is a skilled liar or a cheat or in the process of deliberately deceiving then it is a community service to truthfully and succictly call them out on it (and it is STILL a community service if someone thinks its ad hominem as well) if it saves other community members time and trouble. Individuals who make false charges against others in communities get to be recognized for doing so and their reputations diminish as they rightly should. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:20:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Alt. views require GREATER adherence to rules of civility
I understand the hesitation to use volunteer editors you don't know, Brett. Complaints about editors don't come to me, so I won't comment on that. But, I can say that the editors I monitor at times are highly competent and sensitive to a writer's position. You also have the option - for five days – to edit the piece if you don't like what an editor did. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:00:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I think you personally have been doing an excellent job
I value my own time highly though. I want to be able to push the envelope and I see it as important to challenge people's comfort zones. especially Americans, especially now. I don't aim to cause offence primarily and I will apologise for unintended offence brought to my attention. And of course I will accept banning, but if I opt out it will be because I have lost confidence in the quality of the forum not because I care about making it easier for someone to not hear what I have to say. The way I figure it, it is at exactly the time when I do get banned that I want to be out of the forum because the forum is no longer worth belonging to. If I'm not banned my criticisms by being honest may still be doing some good. I think I am civil almost all of the time actually. But I will always reserve the right not to be in extreme circumstances and to accept the consequences because ultimately this forum is less important that the world in which it exists. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:36:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: of course there are times ...
... when picking-up the nearest blunt object and beating someone over the head with it would be appropriate. It's probably a good thing we can't reach into our screens and strangle those we disagree with. "Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them" Bumper sticker. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:24:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Rady, I hope this doesn't sound ad hominem,
but Rob and all you editors are seriously out of touch with the computer skills and knowledge of many of your members. In my case, it took me a couple of weeks to effect "my website" - which you glowingly refer to as one of OEN's achievements - that is, to figure out that I needed to provide the URL of the location with the tabs on top saying, "My Articles" etc. , to friends and family. At the time, I attributed the OEN staff's obtuseness in this regard to its seeming proccupation with getting everyone to Digg It, etc., with their pieces. Subsequently, I came to believe it was just overfamiliarity with "what editors do" and a consequent loss of ability to put yourself in the position of complete ignoramus vis-a-vis OEN's software. Presently, I think it was a combination of the two. Now that Rob, you and the other editors are facing software changes, I hope you will all become more understanding of old folks and others who are not highly computer literate. I also hope Rob implements the "suggestion box" idea he mentioned a week ago or so in an article. Some of this may seem remote from the "ad hominum" problem, but members who are extremely frustrated with OEN's software are not happy campers; and not unnaturally, we displace our anger from Rob (and the Editors?), who after all have the power to exclude us from the site, and redirect it at those whose positions irritate us most. by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:09:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: your suggestions:
1- we will add a suggestion box soon. 2- Your complaint about telling friends about your page was like a kick in the side of the head. We should have a tell-a-friend button on member pages, and we will, VERY soon. I've already instructed our webmaster. Keep the complaints, observations and suggestions coming. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:39:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanx for this responsiveness, Rob.
But I want to round out a logical and coherent (to my mind) position: (1) What we are talking about is censorship. And many of us who reached political awareness in the 1960's have a hard time with any form of it, even if (or especially if) it's essentially a "Robert's Rules of Order" for debate. (2) Personally, I broke my teeth on internet live (chat) sites at the New York Times' political forums in 2003-2004. They were brutal, and the brutality was practised from all parts of the political spectrum. Yet when my mind had finally turned to mush, I almost always felt like I'd experienced unmediated efforts to express personal and political truths. All the brutality was sincere, if that makes sense, and I harbored no resentments. (3) I don't know if the word N-a-z-i is still banned here like the word s-h-i-t, but any person who is involved in censoring others needs to remember what Lenny Bruce and George Carlin died for - especially a radio-show host, like yourself. (4) I personally agree that OEN should have "family appeal" - althouh I think the famaily-oriented folks who read OEN are probably pretty far from traditional, flag-waving family folks. The devil is in the details, however. This morning I was looking at the photographs of a famous gay photographer, and the thought of submitting one of his to OEN called "Aids - NYC" which showed a large room full of naked men exposed from all angles, simply made me laugh. Similarly, when I started my "Protest Art" series of articles here several months ago, I thought it was likely that the word "Protest" was too strong, and my first couple of articles contained the word "Progressive" instead in their titles. That is, the devil of censorship is in the details. And (5), you own the site, Rob, a fact which must give many with principles varying from socialism leftward cause to pause. And to use my prior example, the meanings of "stupid" on the one hand and "ignorant" on the other shade into one another. And no matter how clear you and Rady and others "in power" at OEN seem to be in your minds about what ad hominem is, it really is not cut and dried. finally, I am glad, and proud, to have been contributing to OEN over the last six or eight months, and I intend to work as hard as I can to comply with your rules for as long as I can. If I owned and edited an internet site like OEN, I would try to discourage ad hominem writers too. Those NYT sites are gone, and I don't think the NYT's overall plummeting reputation had a damn thing to do with it. Keep up the good work, and the struggle. As some of us signed off between 1968 and 1978, In struggle, GLloyd by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:59:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: lloyd.... on censorship
First, any publisher has the right to edit. Censorship is not about publishers. It is about government. Government cannot censor. Publishers can be selective. That's their prerogative. Can't tell you how many times we've been over that. You have a right to say what you want. We don't have a responsibility to publish it. Second, the Think Twice system does not censor. It looks over your shoulder and makes suggestions which you can follow or ignore. Because of issues with advertisers, we HAVE added a filter to put asterisks in key parts of curse words. This does make the site more family friendly. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:37:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "Keep the complaints, observations and suggestions coming".
You are, I think, a good American but it is a very close run thing because of the way you apply choosing the lesser evil thinking without always being aware of the whole breadth of potential evils. (Americans are only 5 per cent of humanity and most humans don't care whether an American is a Republican or a Democrat as much as they care about what Americans together do and allow their representative to do in our shared world). In medical research when effective drugs are sought double blind procedures are used because even capable well meaning people have biases that can effect their collection of data and the conclusions they reach. I LIKE that you are human enough to let yourself get emotionally involved sometimes and to perhaps overstate things and make mistakes because it means you are pushing yourself and you can always correct if you make a mistake. You may lose credibility with people meeting you for the first time if the first thing they hear you say about Cheney is that he is a rats arse (or suggesting hopefully his heart might be weak) but you will at least not be mistaken for not caring or not being engaged in the issues. Whilst you can and do sometimes cry mea culpa when you act as a conversant you can't get the opportunity to self correct if you make mistakes in editting or banning when you are not on your game because you are tired or don't take the time you should because you are busy. Ultimately the quality of opednews depends on you as the principal more than it depends on anyone else. The misjudgements and human errors you make privately or behind the scenes aren't ones that others can help you with. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:52:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Really?
Perhaps such enlightened “ambassadors of Leftist thought” as you proclaim yourself and other ‘Progressives’ to be “need to stay above the fray”; refusing the logical error argumentum ad hominem attack, EXCEPT when attempting to refute or marginalize the ideals and political beliefs of conservative Christians, conservative Republicans, anti-abortion activist or strict Constitutionalist. Then, of course, all such high ideals and lofty principles go out the window… Can you say Palin? by Chas (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:04:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes, really
There is a different standard for public figures running for office and for the writers who post here. I thought Palin was entirely unqualified for the office she was nominated for. Mark's comments earlier in this thread are right on target. For my part, when Palin posts here, I promise to extend to her the same courtesy that I would give any other writer. by Mikhail Lyubansky (15 articles, 11 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:24:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Exactly the point.
‘Progressive liberals’ throw the rules of logic, equitable and fair debate right out of the window when attacking public figures they disagree with. To include the use of lies, slander and whatever attack works. The sad part is that we remain divided while the men ‘behind the curtains’ continue to destroy our Republic. “The government large enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away”. ‘Change’ will be all we have left soon if we do not wake up. by Chas (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments) on Thursday, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:58:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Okay, I'll Bite...
...Roe v. Wade was NOT, repeat NOT, about abortion. It was about the right of privacy. Of COURSE the administration with the worst record defending the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution would support an assault on the right to privacy and cloak it as "right to life." Conservative "christians" who proclaim that everyone has a "right to life" need to lock arms in front of cemetaries. Prove your commitment to your ridiculous premise, first and foremost. As to the rest of your sentiments, I find them dripping with the honey of religious pabulum. Religion is the problem, not the solution. I have always been quick to see where religious people are right, but that would include ALL religious people. Not just the ones who fancy wearing little guillotines around their necks...oops...I meant crucifixes. What an extremely offensive tradition. But what can one really expect from folks who believe it is their JOB to drill holes of "mythology" into the skulls of small children so that they will grow up and be good little consumers of state-sponsored baloney. Religious fundamentalism and religiosity of all stripes is the agar upon which grows a conservative without a conscience -- like a lethal fungus. It is a human reality that trusting others with your "private parts" results in those "trusted servants" walking off with your nether regions in their hands. The sooner we accept this fact, the sooner we can be rid of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and people who rise up from the dead to sell Amway to unsuspecting housewives and househusbands they thought were their "friends." And don't even get me started about the canard of "strict constructionism" and the likes of Antonin Scalia. What we have among the right wingers of the world is a group of people who are too terrified of their own responsibility for their lives to actually appreciate liberty and freedom of thought for what it is: joy and peace. What we have among the far left is a romantic predilection against technology and classical reasoning. The only thing disciplined about the left wing is that they are studiously undisciplined in the application of their multiple ideologies. What the left does, at their worst, is justify their inalienable right to fornicate with impunity and become drunk on the Koolaid of rebellion for rebellion's sake. Obtaining any sort of democratic consensus among the egocentric, narcissistic left is worse than trying to herd wet cats up a hill. I resemble that remark. To whit: there is no up or down in space. When mercilessly clawing over your fellows to get what you want "at the top" of your imaginary heap, you could just as easily be scraping up a new and lower bottom. Salvation lies in moderation in all things. So does boredom, for those resolutely determined to adopt any extreme of ideology. Thoughts are not things, they are maps of things. At their extreme and most crude, thoughts are weapons. In well trained hands, they can be scalpels that heal. by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:23:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You have the right...
You missed the point... I disagree with you, that is obvious; but I have bled to defend your right to BE WRONG and bust hell wide open. Its your God given American Right to voice your opinion and debate it without being marginalized or insulted. Public figure or not. by Chas (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments) on Thursday, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:06:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Rady, what would I/We do without you
and your focus on civility and your ability to abide by the standards you espouse. Since I work with you here on OEN's edit board, I can attest to the great example you set. You're a beloved colleague and I thank you for paving the higher road and for diligently staying on it. YOU ROCK!!! Linda by Linda Milazzo (128 articles, 1 quicklinks, 18 diaries, 210 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:06:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: thanks, sister
of all the committees I've served on, the OEN Board is far and away the most civil. I love your passion - and Rob's - and am ever impressed that we keep it civil. thanks for YOU ;-) by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:36:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Agreeing on how to argue
I go onto right wing sites a lot and follow all kinds of media including LimbaugHannity, our nation's top two radio broadcasters by far. If they couldn't use the tit-for-tat, the straw man, kill-the-messenger, false equivalency, pseudo-scientific endorsement, bandwagon-jump or other deflections, I don't think there would be anything left. If they agreed to these terms for arguing ahead of time, it would lay bare all the fallacies of trying to convince the poor and middle class majority they should advocate for the rich minority. by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:27:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Guilty as charged
Thanks Rady for a very good piece and yes, I can recognize myself. It is probably when I am frustrated and just can't get the words togeather. After all, there are some very tough characters on OEN. Hope you will drop in every so often, as there is still much to be done. gin by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:57:49 PM (0+)
|
|
I agree
Thank you for sharing a path for us to argue more thoughtfully. I also very much appreciated the comments you wrote on my article on the same general topic: "Obama is Hitler? WTF" (Click here). In this article, I was trying to call attention to manipulative uses of rhetoric, which move us in unproductive directions. You have done a wonderful job of giving us more specific guidelines - or ground rules - to have productive discussions. I'd like to see more articles in this vein. Thanks again! by Adam Bessie (22 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 22 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:03:52 PM (0+)
|
|
well
Hate to interject some reality here but the issue is not just about ad hominem, as great as this piece was to address that subject. The problem within the website goes deeper than that. For a long time now we have seen people who know how to skirt the rules, yet get their attacks in. Inferences are a great way to get the dirty work done without saying "you're a moron". There will be no utopia when you have so many diverse opinions. This website was not built as a bastion to "leftist" thought, but diverse thought. Seems certain focres are doing their level best to redefine the website, progressivism, and anything that fits their political worldview. Seems that we can talk all day about being civil as long as what is being written and published is controlled. Peace. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:04:08 PM (0+)
|
|
As much as I loathe ad hominem attacks, I hate lectures more
I do not like being told who I am, what I think, and what I believe. I'm not going to label myself something then confine my choices accordingly. I'm a human being. That's all I need to be. by Melody Clark (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:22:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Ad Hominem for dummies
Really nice article, Rady. You clearly demonstrate that what makes an ad hominem a fallacy is the fact that even though the person being attacked may be doing exactly what the attacker is accusing him/her of doing, it doesn't apply in the case of whether the argument is valid. Worthy of a rhetoric textbook. Good luck in school. Debbie by Debbie Scally (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:28:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: the queue's yours!
lol... thanks so much for all your efforts in the queue, Debbie. now I gotta go read 20 articles for class... by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:11:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Great reminder - thank you!
This is one of those things that makes me want to find a good sturdy wall and start banging my head on it. I wrote a post on the prevalence of this and other fallacies for another progressive site, Bring It On, a while back: click here I don't know which is worse, that so many people don't understand why ad hominem arguments are invalid, or that so many others do know but cynically use them anyway. by Jim Finley (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:42:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Excellent
Educational, enlightening, and much needed. Liberal posters usually do not encounter ad hominem attacks on liberal webpages like this one. Conservative posters on liberal pages (and probably visa versa) get inudated with them. I have been. I can make a post something innocuous, but true, like "President Clinton deserved to be impeached because he lied in a court proceeding." and then get called every name in the book without a word from the attacker addressing whether what I said was true or not. Yet if I made some outlandish, unprovable statement with no facts that fit in with the general viewpoints of most people on this site and included a little Bush Bashing on the side I would be hailed a hero. Ad hominem attacks say more about the attacker than who is being attacked. It must give the attacker some sort of sick pleasure to attack anonymously someone they do not know. I have never understood it although I have probably been driven to it myself by the extreme stupidity and boorish comments I have seen. Like this example from a comment above: "The truth is that conservatives without conscience represent a breed of human beings whose purpose is self destructive and ideologically internecine. Their justification for this behavior is coached in time and its assummed terminal point, which is simply an appeal to realistic or unrealistic fears and not human communication." That this unprovoked attack on conservatives is found buried in a comment about ad hominem attacks is almost hilarious. If you really want to raise the level of discourse on this webpage insist that 'facts' be followed by evidence - links to reputable sources. We should be arguing the facts and not people opinions. Most people do I think. Just couple of examples of ad hominem attacks I have been the recipient of: "We all should realize by now that it is futile to try to reason with Insane Jayhawk. This person is the typical Republican hack. " "You're' getting predictable. This stuff is astroturf. Keep it up and you'll find your access has gone poof." "You rely on the Republican smear campaign. The Republican campaign of smear and distortion that produced the lying Swift Boat veterans, the invisible Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Saddam's connection to his nemesis al-Qaida, ghosts of enriched uranium in Nigeria, Bush as a family-value pack, an unlicensed Republican plumber who makes 40 K but pretends of making a quarter million, and McCain as an economist as a maverick.... and more lies..." Hurt my feelings? Of course not. They are such stupid statements that they are funny. We are all here to have some intellectual fun. We definitely won't save the world by posting on OEN. by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:53:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I disagree on one point
I definitely believe that we may very well save the world by posting on OEN. I have seen exact quotes taken from my articles and repeated by elected or proposed elected officials at least three times. I do not believe for one minute that I am unique in this. I think that staffers for many elected officials scan OEN for useful ideas and quotable items. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:19:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: For an example, see the following:
For an example, see this article of mine, http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_071117_democratic_debate_in.htm Senator Clinton did very well in this debate. It was a big improvement from the last one and she handled criticism very well. What was a mistake was the “Boo birds” that her campaign planted in the crowd. First, she didn’t need to have them because as I said, she handled herself well and dealt with the attacks well, and second, it seemed to me a tactic born of weakness. If your opponents have legitimate issues to raise against you, and you cannot handle them on the stage and have to resort to planting people in the audience to boo your opponents, you have acknowledged your weakness on those issues. It is particularly worrisome for the campaign of a Democratic candidate to do things like this in the contest for the Democratic nomination because attacks from fellow Democrats are lukewarm and milquetoast compared to what will come from Republicans in the general election. If you have to pull out tricks like these now to handle issues your opponents are raising, you are telling me that you will be in big trouble dealing with Republicans. and this direct quote from John Edwards in the Daily news two days later "Monday, November 19th 2007, 4:00 AM "Having been through a general election, I mean, if anybody, including Sen. Clinton, thinks this is mudslinging ... this is milquetoast compared to what we're going to see next fall," Edwards told CBS' "Face the Nation." concentrate on the use of the word milquetoast, a word that isn't exactly common. ----------------------------- Elected officials and/or their staffers read OEN. I am convinced of it. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:34:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Damn
I learned something-----always thought it was sp like it sounded. :) by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:07:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: yeah, it can get pretty snarky in here...
Jay – thanks for the respect you've shown me in every encounter we've had. Kinda like current military conflicts, there are those on many sides who seek accord and there are those who sabotage any accord. I often wonder what freaks them out about the masses talking to each other; sharing ideas, building bridges. Probably doesn't sell as many weapons. I've read some incredibly abusive comments – even directed at liberals; I once went thru about 100 comments on a single article and deleted about third of them – every single deleted one had nasty attacks like you quote. It's something we have to personally choose to stop doing – or not. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:56:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I am sure you have a point
However, I would like to add that I have quite a bit of experience arguing with conservatives, living in Kansas as I do and being surrounded by them as I am. My experience with them is that GENERALLY they don't know all the facts and that, when presented with the facts, they begin the ad hominem attacks almost immediately. Because, as someone said earlier in their post, they don't have a valid argument against the facts. My experiences make me less than sympathetic to conservative thinkers. I do try to be cordial and polite, but I almost expect to be called an atheist, communist, hedonist, etc. anytime I post anywhere because it has happened so many times. Even on supposedly "progressive" sites. So, I am sure that I have employed the ad hominem attack myself; I am not perfect and never claimed to be. But I will try to be more careful in the future, even with conservatives. Having said that, I can't say I believe that the following is an ad hominem attack (though it could have been said less vindictively): "You rely on the Republican smear campaign. The Republican campaign of smear and distortion that produced the lying Swift Boat veterans, the invisible Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Saddam's connection to his nemesis al-Qaida, ghosts of enriched uranium in Nigeria, Bush as a family-value pack, an unlicensed Republican plumber who makes 40 K but pretends of making a quarter million, and McCain as an economist as a maverick.... and more lies..." There is such a thing as propaganda and it has been used to great benefit by the Republican Party to mold public sentiment in their direction. I have been a victim of it, before my eyes were opened. Since I have spent time researching the topic, I can spot it from a mile away. So, when someone uses a propaganda argument to state their case, I know it when I see it and I call them on it. And I believe that is what the writer of the above paragraph was doing, though I can't say for sure because the paragraph is out of context. by Paula Sayles (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 204 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:08:07 AM (0+)
|
|
the power of logic and rhetoric
Thanks Rady and commenters for inspiring us to clarify our understanding of logic and rhetoric. This serves us all well in the domain of public discourse. Generally when I argue with conservatives about, say, 9/11 truth, the debate unravels on an insistance by my opponent that I have not provided evidence or logic, that is, a denial of what I clearly did say. Once denial sets in the debate ends. But back to ad hominem attacks. You might say they are the offensive component of the strategy of denial. The point I would make is that on a deeper level the hearts and minds of people always are processing information in an internal dialogue or debate. And so, a person's life becomes defined or boxed in by denial, intentional disinformation, false rationalizations, and robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you agree with the logic that exposing ourselves to all the information and facts on any aspect of life is positive, the next step of opening the doors of perception within is often one that publically logical people are afraid to take. Even here on wonderful opednews, there are in fact certain doors which have been shut and comments deleted, not because they violated the peace of the community, but because they implied a courageous commitment by all members to examine the root causes of the current massive deception. Meanwhile, and I don't mean this as negativity toward Mr. M whom I do love, but commenters like himself are able to post advocacies that I completely disagree with and have never practiced. This is from Mr. M's comment above: "of course there are times ... when picking-up the nearest blunt object and beating someone over the head with it would be appropriate...'Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them' -Bumper sticker. " How easily allies can become mouthpieces for violence! Strange world. Any of us feeling disabused could sit back and watch the folks coming out of Plato's cave and their reaction to reality as it will surely dawn outside in the real world in the times to come. I think many of the Cassandras who were slammed as communists, pinkos, watermelons, detentists, pacificists, dreamers and much worse will no longer be held up to ridicule in the old ad hominem horse collars as clear light dissolves the shadows... but only after alot more suffering and collapse of a failed paradigm. Deconstruction of the denial of humanity, nihilism, violent attack, and domination only occur in states of humility and grace. If the internal dialogs were held in the headspace of humility and openness, we could actually have our peaceful world back, but threats of violence are an all American default mode, apparently. And woe unto us who present a way out of this mess. If only in the cycle of nations that resolution into understanding and foregiveness of our attacks and attackers would come sooner from within, we could step outside the box and live free with a planet left worth living in to a healthy old age: -John Lennon But there I go again with an ad hominem attack or two, sorry.... by mary sunshine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 149 comments [79 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:15:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mary, if it wasn't obvious that, that comment was ...
... tongue-in-cheek, let me assure you it was ... although, I must admit, there have been times when smacking some imbecile upside the head seemed like a good thing to do at the time ... by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:36:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Thanks for a great article, Rady!
While I knew much of this in general, it was good to get more details, and I look forward to even more via the other article you mentioned. Thanks for raising the bar! I am a believer in shifting focus to the positive, and my writing on OEN is designed to uplift readers, and encourage them on toward greater thoughts and actions. One of my articles posted a few months ago – a little parable – was the butt of a venomous ad hominem attack by an OEN editor. I should mention that I previewed this article with others before posting – with two other OEN editors, and with a bestselling author and spiritual teacher. They all agreed that it was “brilliant” and one called it “the best insights I’ve ever read on this conflict.” So while each is entitled to her opinion, it certainly makes for a more respectable site if comments are a bit more gentile, particularly when they come from an editor. Agreement is not mandatory, but civility should be. Respect seems to get a more solid footing when it comes from the top, down. I should mention that I never received any apology from the editor in question. My little parable (Israel! Palestine! Listen Up!) was a fable about the ad hominem type attacks that form the foundation of the Israel-Palestine conflict. This editor’s hostile comments perfectly exemplified my points about why it is so hard to find peace in the Middle East. Sad to say that other readers might have been robbed of the benefits of the deeper spiritual significance of the piece, as a result of the hostile attack. And, while I can’t prove anything, I can say that after writing several dozen articles for OEN (beginning in 2004 – not all my old articles are listed in the archives), I do have a sense of the cycles on the site. And I can tell you that I have never seen an article of mine travel down the page to become so swiftly buried, as this one. Was it co-incidence? I don’t know, but it seems odd. So, as an example of what you brilliantly offer in your article, the ad hominem tactics so effectively used in the Middle East to incite war, were also efficiently used on my article. On another note - good luck on your new adventure! I'll be looking forward to your visits to these pages! by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 721 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:26:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: people will disagree with a writer's theme/premise
Meryl Ann ~ First, thank you for your kind words. Regarding Israel! Palestine! LISTEN UP!, where you heard criticism, I have again reviewed the comments. Two people viewed your theme as trivializing the Is-Pal conflict, and you defended yourself by explaining it was a parable. Much like Humpty Dumpty could be perceived as trivializing the tragedy of a King gone mad, both Humpty Dumpty and your piece do make a serious point. Another writer agreed with you. But I find nothing ad hominem about the criticisms you received. Your parable took a risk - that by parabalizing the issue you would offend people. And that happened. And you heard from them. You also heard from someone who thought the parable was brilliant. Again, this opinion is not about Meryl Ann, but about the theme. None of these comments stoop to ad hominem argument. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:01:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: and thank you!
And thank you for a great article! It sure has everyone thinking about this! In your article you say, “We need to use diplomacy, tact and grace. Keep our judgments about other people's ideas off the table. Stick to the facts and conclusions. Debate the facts and/or conclusions. Keep our emotions out of it.” I think that sounds like a great prescription for raising the bar toward more effective interactions here. The two comments below seemed to me (then, and now – and to other readers, as well, judging from the private emails I received) to be demeaning and rude, and with an intention to cut off dialog rather than inspire it. Of course I believe that everyone is entitled to one’s own opinion, and it seems to me that engaging in a cooperative verbal volley is a good way to develop more understanding of a subject, but that was clearly not what was going on here, and I was just using what you were offering as a measuring stick to determine the “ad hominumity” of these comments, for example: “Sorry, but your demeaning tone to the metaphorical children in your piece shows you don't feel they're as evolved as you state in your comment.” “My suggestion to you would be to listen to the commentary and perhaps learn from it.” by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 721 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:46:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A sword that cuts both ways
You're gonna sharpen my understanding, Meryl Ann. Maybe by opening this dicussion to the full membershp, others will chime in and help elucidate the matter. I'm gonna go to the board, also, to help with this - and see what discussion ensues. Do you also find the comment "brilliant" to be ad hominem? by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:17:27 AM (0+)
|
|
language
Rady, you have given a wonderful example in yourself, as well as the wonderful technical exposition on what "Ad hominem" actually means in all it's various flavors. Human frailty...it is all of ours to share. "Freedom of Expression", has never expected equality of talent, wit and understanding in the real world. Truth and beauty are within the beholder, as are all human qualities--this includes "Ad Hominem" as well. I consider it a privilege, not a right to post comments here. I consider it a right to hold and express my own opinions however. We may find that what is and is not "Ad Hominem" a matter of "political correctness" at times. We may find that this issue can be confused in even the most brilliant of minds at times. As one who has studied linguistics, and especially that discipline as revealed in the writings Of Orwell, I find it very difficult to to address certain concepts without addressing the person expressing those concepts; to point out the internalized fallacies imposed by the particular "group think" of the paradigm we find ourselves in. I merely ask patience of the editors and host. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1685 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:56:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: battle of words
thanks William - I have no doubt you are correct: "We may find that what is and is not 'Ad Hominem' a matter of 'political correctness' at times. "We may find that this issue can be confused in even the most brilliant of minds at times." We try - and the good thing is there are many people at once discussing various aspects - to help us see our blind sides. I understand your objection: "As one who has studied linguistics, and especially that discipline as revealed in the writings Of Orwell, I find it very difficult to to address certain concepts without addressing the person expressing those concepts; to point out the internalized fallacies imposed by the particular "group think" of the paradigm we find ourselves in." Any set of rules has exceptions... I didn't include the detailed exceptions; but this topic you raise is covered in some of the links in my piece. Mark Sashine said a similar thing... along similar lines (but with a lot more heat ;-) Yes, there are subtle distinctions - but most of us need to learn the big black and white distinctions first, like name calling, etc. I loved Linguistics in college, btw - what a science; how fascinating. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:26:56 PM (0+)
|
|
I've been banned...
I've been banned at so many places that I lost count long ago, yet I haver never made an ad hominem attack. The problem has never been what I say, but rather what is heard. Only rarely have others stood in my defense. I tell you this not as a badge of anything, but to state that I am intimately familiar with the problem of attacks from being on the receiving end. Political stripes don't matter. I have been banned by conservatives and liberals, Protestants and Catholics, bankers and ranchers, mac users etc. I haven't been banned everywhere; there are a few wonderful forums out there of deep thinkers. I just wanted to offer a few observations: 1.) I have learned far more from arguing with people I disagree with than by talking to people I agree with. 2.) The hotter the debate, the more likely a breakthrough is near for one or both parties. 3.) Moderators are almost always wrong. 4.) All anger stems from fear, but is masked by pride. Occasionally the anger stems from pride, and is masked by fear. :-) In any case, fear and pride generally travel as a pair. 5.) The people you disagree with are your mirror. You can learn a lot about yourself by listening to what you are saying. Or as I used to say in a forum long ago, before I was banned: God gave us fools to test our wisdom. If we can open the eyes of the unwise, then our wisdom is nearing completion. :-) lol So, how did I do? I think I still have a long way to go. Pride and fear still dog me. "The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death.' -Socrates by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:22:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: sweet!
thank you... all good ideas to keep in mind (except the all moderators are wrong part [ok, jk]) by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:19:59 PM (0+)
|