Re: Are ad honomin attacks ever justified?
Dan Minette wrote: If a popular expert on child rearing turns out to have really botched the rearing of their own children, does that lower one's opinion of their work? The children of a shoemaker seldom have good shoes is IIRC what the husband of Dr. Ruth said when asked about the quality of their sexlife. That doesn't make her any less of an expert on the subject though. But to answer the question. Attacks on a person as such are never justified. It is aimed at nullifying the argument someone makes by an attempt to diminishing the value of that person. A secure and well established personality doesn't have to resort to such dirty tricks to win points in an argument. Especially since that shouldn't be the objective of a discussion in the first place. The object of discussion should be to get more insight into other views apart from once own, to form a well rounded, freshly established and constantly reevaluated opinion of the object of discussion. That would be in an ideal world of course. tongue in cheek Currently we just hit each other over the head with anything conveniently at hand untill someone gives in or is carried away soaked in blood bunch of neanderthales. /tongue in cheek Sonja :o) GCU: Indiscretions of a caveman ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Are ad honomin attacks ever justified?
Is it fair to bring up that someone railing against those drug users was an illegal drug user himself for much of the time? Is it fair to point out that he yells and screams about police action against him that was in line with what he advocated for others? You know what? Screw Rush and all his true believers who excoriated Democrats for being soft on Clinton's transgressions. Here's the definition of a compassionate conservative: A dittohead who's just learned that Rush is a junkie. I wasn't a Rush hater (or fan) till this happened. The way he's handled it makes me despise him. I wish him the worst. I hope he relapses, publicly and humiliatingly. But none of this proves Rush is wrong, it just proves he's a degenerate unreformed hypocrite. Like Clinton. He should be ashamed of himself, but he's not. Robert Downey Jr. is more sincere about reforming than that big fat idiot Limbaugh is. Rush is occasionally entertaining, frequently astute, and none of what's happened proves anything except he's a liar and a cheat and he doesn't obey the law and he's not really committed to his beliefs. There's a time and place to call someone an asshole, and there's a time and place to engage in reasoned debate. Frequently, it can be hard to remember which one you're supposed to be doing, especially when you disagree with someone who's an asshole, or when you disagree with someone and can't think of anything to say except, You're an asshole! I think we sometimes forget about the fact that, really, there is a time and place to call someone an asshole. Life isn't all about reasoned debate, and making judgments about other people can be perfectly rational and appropriate. Janet Jackson, you're an asshole. So's your brother. Justin Timberlake is a perineum away from being an asshole. My suggestion is that we should all divide our most impassioned posts into two parts: Part One: You're an asshole and here's why. Part Two: You're wrong and here's why. -Mike ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Are ad honomin attacks ever justified?
In a message dated 2/12/2004 12:40:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would also, personally, like more arguments based on reason, and fewer on emotion. I get emotional too, don't get me wrong. But, I enjoy trying to find what the best solution is more than simply reinforcing my own ideas. I try to be as hard or harder on demanding good arguments in favor of things I believe in than those opposed. In this manner, I hope to both improve my understanding, and better support those things I believe in. If the arguments of an opponent are so strong that I cannot find sufficient support, then I try to be open to changing my mind. I know, for example, that Gautam and I have changed each others minds on several points I think that most of the examples you cite are examples of either human failings or hypocricy (when for instance one rails about something and engages in the same act). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Are ad honomin attacks ever justified?
Nice sentiments Dan. But how can we avoid angst? How can we avoid emotion? Especially since we are, to a fairly large degree, governed by our emotions. -Travis one things lead to another... Edmunds Meaning that, no matter what one says, it always opens up at least one more door. From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Are ad honomin attacks ever justified? Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:48:58 -0600 There's a good general rule about attacking the idea put forth by someone, not the person. But, I've noticed that we all make exceptions to that rule. I was musing on when those exceptions are justified, and when they are not. Let me ask a number of questions: If a preacher regularly preaches against adultery, does finding that he has been cheating on his wife with multiple partners over the last 30 years diminish his authority to keep on admonishing others? Especially, if he denies it? Does he need to publicly confront his own sinfulness before continuing to admonish others for theirs? If a popular expert on child rearing turns out to have really botched the rearing of their own children, does that lower one's opinion of their work? Is it fair to bring up that someone railing against those drug users was an illegal drug user himself for much of the time? Is it fair to point out that he yells and screams about police action against him that was in line with what he advocated for others? Is it relevant to argue that a policy being advocated by one's political opposition is in the personal best interest of themselves and their friends? Is it a fair criticism to state they are doing it for personal instead of public reasons? If someone was given a bye from going to Viet Nam because of who his daddy was; is that at all relevant his ability to talk about those who opposed the war being unpatriotic? If someone slides by a homicide conviction because of political connections, is that at all relevant to any of his statements; even statements criticizing his political opponents for using political connections for personal gain? Is there some need to acknowledge that he did it too; especially since his case was a far more serious offence? I'd like to propose that we still refrain from attacking each other's motives for writing, but that some of the discussions of who's opinions we respect can take in to account situations like I've described above. I'd also like to suggest that, when we do, we make the linkage explicit. For example, I have a hard time accepting any claim by Ted Kennedy of his opponents using their political power for personal gain because he used his political power to get off a vehicular homicide conviction without even a trial. He should either address his own sins in that manner or shut up about the lesser sins of others. or I have a very hard time taking anything Rush says seriously because he uses the very loopholes he condemns for others. He seems to be motivated more by the right people getting by than a genuine concern about the nation. I'm proposing this as an aid to pleasant, spirited discussions, instead of a rule I want enforced. If someone wants to respond by personally insulting me; I'm not going to try to get them censured. It is merely my opinion concerning how we can have more fun and less angst in our debates. I would also, personally, like more arguments based on reason, and fewer on emotion. I get emotional too, don't get me wrong. But, I enjoy trying to find what the best solution is more than simply reinforcing my own ideas. I try to be as hard or harder on demanding good arguments in favor of things I believe in than those opposed. In this manner, I hope to both improve my understanding, and better support those things I believe in. If the arguments of an opponent are so strong that I cannot find sufficient support, then I try to be open to changing my mind. I know, for example, that Gautam and I have changed each others minds on several points. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photospgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
