What's new
By:

On the subject of personal attacks

Siro

Siro

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
I've noticed that there exists an idea in modern society that personal attacks are inherently irrational and have no place in a civil debate. Some will even thru fancy phrases like "ad hominem fallacy" as if that settles it.

But that's just nonsense. The notion that ideas must be treated like independent entities separate from the person advancing them is the fallacy. In reality, people have motives, whether conscious or, more importantly, subconscious. And illuminating those motives are an integral part of any good discussion. For example, Franklin questioning Dalamon's dislike of the US as a motivator for his ideas is perfectly valid. It is important to understand the context from which those ideas stem if you want to understand what your opponent actually thinks, and why s/he thinks that. Similarly, despite popular opinion, me calling Archie dishonest or stupid for pretending he's just a messenger dispassionately passing along what he hears is legitimate and interesting. More interesting, in fact, than ignoring Archie's motives and blindly discussing Shapiro's racial sentiments.

So ya, personal attacks definitely have a place in rational debates. Thank you for your time.
 
Siro said:
I've noticed that there exists an idea in modern society that personal attacks are inherently irrational and have no place in a civil debate. Some will even thru fancy phrases like "ad hominem fallacy" as if that settles it.

But that's just nonsense. The notion that ideas must be treated like independent entities separate from the person advancing them is the fallacy. In reality, people have motives, whether conscious or, more importantly, subconscious. And illuminating those motives are an integral part of any good discussion.
Click to expand...

[video=youtube_share;hEh6kwmSbAE]https://youtu.be/hEh6kwmSbAE

Siro, please feel free to personally attack me any time you want, dude. I'm sure you're a cool guy and all, but you're a nobody to me who feels the need to follow me around constantly and criticise my intelligence, my persona, my art, my political beliefs, and now, my subconsciousness. This is what bullies do, but to me, you're not a bully. You're just a sad lil man. Sorry we disagree on things, dude but at the end of the day, I wish you the best.


:)


(This is the part where it's really hard not to give in to Wes's bet.)
 
hey bro. Coprolite is a rock. Yes, it's a term anthropolists and geologists use sometimes because it's a kind of fossil. If you encounter coprolite, you will notice a characteristic shape that's familiar, say to the average toilet-fishing four-year old, but the fossil doesn't stink.

In hopes of drawing Trout back to this site, I humbly submit the following link. It should work like a magnet.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/longest-fossilized-poop-to-be-sold-at-auction/
 
Archie Moses said:
[video=youtube_share;hEh6kwmSbAE]https://youtu.be/hEh6kwmSbAE

Siro, please feel free to personally attack me any time you want, dude. I'm sure you're a cool guy and all, but you're a nobody to me who feels the need to follow me around constantly and criticise my intelligence, my persona, my art, my political beliefs, and now, my subconsciousness. This is what bullies do, but to me, you're not a bully. You're just a sad lil man. Sorry we disagree on things, dude but at the end of the day, I wish you the best.


:)


(This is the part where it's really hard not to give in to Wes's bet.)
Click to expand...

Another post about your delicate feelings? I don't think I've ever engaged with you in any conversation outside of the few posts in that Ben Shapiro thread. Following you around and bullying you? LMAO. I find you about as interesting as Boris, and I typically skip over your posts.

Also, didn't you have me on ignore? Ya, let's stick with that, as opposed to the teary-eyed diatribes.

PS enough with your Shapiro porn. It's truly sickening. Have you never heard of anyone else?
 
Siro, I couldn't say for sure whether you've ever been to college. But back in the day when I wasted 18 years of my life in that erudite environment, it was a common courtesy to give whoever was talking a little leeway on the assumption that it was a discussion about ideas, not religions. As in it was considered a high art to be able to objectively discuss ideas in the whole human experience on their merits in one respect or another, without actually having to recant all other possible ideas.

Sometime after the age of Gallileo, here in the West we embraced some values in regard to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and basic human rights generally denying authorities of governments of any level the power to compel belief or speech.

In our tradition, personal attacks are just irrelevant because we deny bullies and jackbooted policemen the power to be meaningful if they attempt to coerce belief or speech. Before Marxist and/or Islamists began to assert their pretended superiority, we were quite safe in this protection of human rights. Well, except for the Mormons who were driven out of the civilized country for believing some jarringly irregular things, and except for the Native Americans with their love for nature and untampered open lands (who nevertheless drove one another about in wars of extermination..... well, I'm drifting off here.

Among our treasured liberties, of course, it the right to hate, vilify, and verbally degrade one another if we have enough wit to do so. The highest form of this art can be practiced by the lowest conservative redneck ignoramus right under the noses of Marxist mods or re-education camp trainees..... But what makes this site gratifying is the rare liberal who can match wits with, say, NCJazz or Pearl.

This site, of course, is not a protected space because it is privately owned, and you actually have no rights but those which management may be gracious enough to leave unrestrained or in-edited.
 
babe said:
Siro, I couldn't say for sure whether you've ever been to college. But back in the day when I wasted 18 years of my life in that erudite environment, it was a common courtesy to give whoever was talking a little leeway on the assumption that it was a discussion about ideas, not religions. As in it was considered a high art to be able to objectively discuss ideas in the whole human experience on their merits in one respect or another, without actually having to recant all other possible ideas.

Sometime after the age of Gallileo, here in the West we embraced some values in regard to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and basic human rights generally denying authorities of governments of any level the power to compel belief or speech.

In our tradition, personal attacks are just irrelevant because we deny bullies and jackbooted policemen the power to be meaningful if they attempt to coerce belief or speech. Before Marxist and/or Islamists began to assert their pretended superiority, we were quite safe in this protection of human rights. Well, except for the Mormons who were driven out of the civilized country for believing some jarringly irregular things, and except for the Native Americans with their love for nature and untampered open lands (who nevertheless drove one another about in wars of extermination..... well, I'm drifting off here.

Among our treasured liberties, of course, it the right to hate, vilify, and verbally degrade one another if we have enough wit to do so. The highest form of this art can be practiced by the lowest conservative redneck ignoramus right under the noses of Marxist mods or re-education camp trainees..... But what makes this site gratifying is the rare liberal who can match wits with, say, NCJazz or Pearl.

This site, of course, is not a protected space because it is privately owned, and you actually have no rights but those which management may be gracious enough to leave unrestrained or in-edited.
Click to expand...

Good post.

In my book, the insistence on disinterested discourse is the coercive approach. No one is disinterested, or they wouldn't be having a debate. I'll talk about the ideas, but I won't pretend you're some objective arbitrator.

Given that you start every debate attacking Marxists and whathaveyou, you know this very well.

Oh, and I have been to college. 8 years of it.
 
I never went to college, suckas!Built a business instead of going into debt, suckas! And I speak way gooder than you guys trying to show off how good you type and stuff.
 
Siro said:
I've noticed that there exists an idea in modern society that personal attacks are inherently irrational and have no place in a civil debate. Some will even thru fancy phrases like "ad hominem fallacy" as if that settles it.

But that's just nonsense. The notion that ideas must be treated like independent entities separate from the person advancing them is the fallacy. In reality, people have motives, whether conscious or, more importantly, subconscious. And illuminating those motives are an integral part of any good discussion. For example, Franklin questioning Dalamon's dislike of the US as a motivator for his ideas is perfectly valid. It is important to understand the context from which those ideas stem if you want to understand what your opponent actually thinks, and why s/he thinks that. Similarly, despite popular opinion, me calling Archie dishonest or stupid for pretending he's just a messenger dispassionately passing along what he hears is legitimate and interesting. More interesting, in fact, than ignoring Archie's motives and blindly discussing Shapiro's racial sentiments.

So ya, personal attacks definitely have a place in rational debates. Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

This place is microcosm vs. macrocosm, with both often misinterpreted. I've noticed over the years that when I respond to a poster with specific history of shared thought that others not privy tend to take it out of context and get offended. I've also noticed way too many times where posters making a political P.O.V. are harassed, and then have to place a disclaimer ( [MENTION=499]LogGrad98[/MENTION] 's point) instead of the other poster understanding the posting history and being rational about it.
 
I think in this thread "ad hominem" is being used incorrectly. It is not just a personal attack during an argument, it is rather when one person uses a personal attack instead of a rational argument. I may be arguing for abortion rights of the mother, and I may be a staunch republican. The other person may get frustrated and say something like "well you are a known neocon so your opinion on abortion doesn't matter since you are racist and do not support individual rights" or something. This is an adhominem argument that sidesteps the actual discussion and brings in an element similar to "guilt by association".
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think in this thread "ad hominem" is being used incorrectly. It is not just a personal attack during an argument, it is rather when one person uses a personal attack instead of a rational argument. I may be arguing for abortion rights of the mother, and I may be a staunch republican. The other person may get frustrated and say something like "well you are a known neocon so your opinion on abortion doesn't matter since you are racist and do not support individual rights" or something. This is an adhominem argument that sidesteps the actual discussion and brings in an element similar to "guilt by association".
Click to expand...

Don't you ad hominem me with your costume at Southern Utah University. (an [MENTION=146]DutchJazzer[/MENTION] dream find and worthy of a separate thread)

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46187856&n...tudents-skip-sombreros-blackface-on-halloween
 
Back in my day… Personal attacks actually meant something. When we went after somebody's mom, face, intelligence – – or severe lack there of – – we went in guns blazing, hearts wide open, and teeth bared. I have forgotten more about personal attacks than what all you ******* know combined.

I blame your parents, really.


babe said:
hey bro. Coprolite is a rock. Yes, it's a term anthropolists and geologists use sometimes because it's a kind of fossil. If you encounter coprolite, you will notice a characteristic shape that's familiar, say to the average toilet-fishing four-year old, but the fossil doesn't stink.

In hopes of drawing Trout back to this site, I humbly submit the following link. It should work like a magnet.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/longest-fossilized-poop-to-be-sold-at-auction/
Click to expand...

Would it surprise you to know that I have quite an impressive collection of fossilized **** that I have found right here in the great state of Utah?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top