On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:57:19PM +0200, Daniel Dekany wrote: > Thursday, July 3, 2003, 4:56:40 PM, Tim Colson wrote: > > >> >>It seems a bit daft. > >> >>AFAICS, this is based on some perverse, distorted version of the MVC > >> >>paradigm. > >> >>Anyway, that's what Tim Colson wants, and it's nutty enough > >> >>that neither > > > >> An ad hominem attack is necessarily on another person's > >> character, not on their ideas. > > Agreed. And by saying that my request was "daft" and based on "some > > perverse, distorted..." which I took to implies and insinuate that I > > have those qualities of character in order to create such an idea. That > > is offensive to me. > > Well, if its an OT thread anyway... a little theological course (seems > that FM people are experts in this field... :)). Ad hominem attack is > when the other persons tells something that is *irrelevant* regarding > the disputed question, to discredit you in general. For example, I say > that Vel. people was unfair with WebMacro people, and then the a Vel. > people bring up that: "Note that Daniel was in prison for 3 times > because of raping... he is a such man." This discredits everything else > what I said, because I'm such a bad man in general. In this case I have > suffered an Ad hominem attack. Typical method in politics. > > If somebody thinks that your idea is a nonsense, and he tells you that > "You are an IDIOOOOOT!", then it cleanly means that he strongly believes > that your idea is an utter nonsense, *this way* you must be stupid, > brain-damaged, etc. Now, this can be offending, and can be an attack, > but it's in no way an *Ad hominem* attack.
I don't think your definition is correct: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Ad+hominem&db=* Certainly the usage that I'm familiar with allows for ad hominem attacks to be pertinent, but separate from the real topic. That is, describing the person as daft would qualify, even if it has some bearing on the discussion; but calling the idea daft does not (in the quote above, it is the idea that is described that way). Language is usage of course, and it does change. Using the phrase "perverse, distorted" is stands out because of the extremely strong connotations associated with "perverse ideas" -- it's hard to avoid that there is a certain degree of personal smearing going on when that term is used rather than something more neutral like: "based on an incorrect idea of the MVC paradigm." The words used do suggest this could be described as "ad hominem abusive": http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm Regardless of the definition you choose want to use for ad hominem, from my perspective as a lurker, the terms used seemed excessive and unhelpful, and they did seem designed to attack the person as someone worth of being dismissed. cheers -- Ed, who has used -- and does not like -- templating systems which allow no real logic in the display layer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
