Personal Attack
It seems to me that a personal attack is Argumentum ad hominem, which literally means "argument directed at the man". There are two types: Abusive and Circumstantial.
Abusive: When one argues against some assertion by attacking the person who made the assertion. A personal attack isn't a valid argument, because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. For example:
Capitalism is evil because some evil people professed it.
Circumstantial: When one argues that someone should or should not accept the truth of an assertion because of that person's particular circumstances, because the truth of an assertion doesnt depend on the circumstances of the person asserting it. For example:
It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you disagree, since you wear leather shoes?
A particular form of circumstantial argumentum ad hominem, when one alleges that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well". For example:
"How can you speak against government waste: youve been feeding at the public trough for years?"
Speech you dont like, if youre going to be civil, requires speech that defends your views and argues against the views of others instead of wheeling out the rusty artillery of abuse.
The example of imperturbable civility in the face of barbarian rage is emblematic, I think, of what civilization is all about, and is the best way in cyberspace (and cyberspace started with the first human writing, I think) to persuade others (though not often ones enraged opponent, admittedly) of the virtues of such civility in the first place and the validity of ones arguments in the second.
The problem with the notion of "more speech" in response to speech one doesnt like is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been tried and found difficult. It is, therefore, often abandoned in favor of the far easier demand to suppress the speech one doesnt like.
The only speech I will suppress on this bulletin board is personal attack speech directed against the posters on this bulletin board.
Please refrain from making personal attacks on other posters. Im urging everyone to use civil speech to establish boundaries and definitions and to compare boundaries and definitions. One of the most fascinating things about bulletin boards is that it invites people into a forum to discuss things with people they wouldnt meet, or wouldnt meet often, or if they met wouldnt talk to, in the flesh.
Some people, confronted with opinions they dont want to hear, and forbidden either to call their opponents names or demand the suppression of their opponents views, vote with their feet. That's too bad, because running away from opposing views seems to me to be counter-productive and, ultimately, self-defeating. What seems to me to be productive and virtuous is, instead, trying to educating oneself, one's interlocutors, and the uncommitted bystanders through discussion that addresses the merits of the issues at hand without resorting to personal attack.
Thank you for your cooperation.
It seems to me that a personal attack is Argumentum ad hominem, which literally means "argument directed at the man". There are two types: Abusive and Circumstantial.
Abusive: When one argues against some assertion by attacking the person who made the assertion. A personal attack isn't a valid argument, because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. For example:
Capitalism is evil because some evil people professed it.
Circumstantial: When one argues that someone should or should not accept the truth of an assertion because of that person's particular circumstances, because the truth of an assertion doesnt depend on the circumstances of the person asserting it. For example:
It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you disagree, since you wear leather shoes?
A particular form of circumstantial argumentum ad hominem, when one alleges that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well". For example:
"How can you speak against government waste: youve been feeding at the public trough for years?"
Speech you dont like, if youre going to be civil, requires speech that defends your views and argues against the views of others instead of wheeling out the rusty artillery of abuse.
The example of imperturbable civility in the face of barbarian rage is emblematic, I think, of what civilization is all about, and is the best way in cyberspace (and cyberspace started with the first human writing, I think) to persuade others (though not often ones enraged opponent, admittedly) of the virtues of such civility in the first place and the validity of ones arguments in the second.
The problem with the notion of "more speech" in response to speech one doesnt like is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been tried and found difficult. It is, therefore, often abandoned in favor of the far easier demand to suppress the speech one doesnt like.
The only speech I will suppress on this bulletin board is personal attack speech directed against the posters on this bulletin board.
Please refrain from making personal attacks on other posters. Im urging everyone to use civil speech to establish boundaries and definitions and to compare boundaries and definitions. One of the most fascinating things about bulletin boards is that it invites people into a forum to discuss things with people they wouldnt meet, or wouldnt meet often, or if they met wouldnt talk to, in the flesh.
Some people, confronted with opinions they dont want to hear, and forbidden either to call their opponents names or demand the suppression of their opponents views, vote with their feet. That's too bad, because running away from opposing views seems to me to be counter-productive and, ultimately, self-defeating. What seems to me to be productive and virtuous is, instead, trying to educating oneself, one's interlocutors, and the uncommitted bystanders through discussion that addresses the merits of the issues at hand without resorting to personal attack.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Marcus
