Not to dredge up ancient history, but the women’s suffrage thread is a good example of how these things often go. IIRC, the OP was something like, “Since we know women don’t support the values on which America was founded and prefer safety and security to freedom and, therefore, vote for liberals, would America be better off if they never got the vote?” The OP steadfastly refused to back up these assertions and continued to push them despite compelling evidence that they were dead, flat wrong. No hominems were attacked in the production of that thread. Not, that is, until the OP himself went off and got the thread locked.
The personal attacks occurred in a pit thread started expressly for that purpose.
I agree that personal attacks don’t belong in GD because they do not advance the discussion. Generally, I also agree that GD debates should be conducted politely. However, sometimes the OP is so off-base or a poster so determinedly illogical that one feels compelled to go after the argument with a bit of acerbity. I think it’s also a service to the reader. If you’re going to read yet another post explaining why, say, colonialism was a bad thing in Africa, at least it ought to be entertaining.
Yes Collounsbury they mean you, however I used you specifically as a good poster knowing you are acerbic because you don’t just say, “This is unworthy of a response because you are such an idiot” you say “If you knew anything about the situation then you’d be aware that…”, and I see a difference between the two and tried to make that clear, though it appears I did not.
I have noted that extreme views of any kind tend to get jumped on without objective argument, and occasionally get people banned (or at least, persisting with expressing them does). The hivemind appears to deem certain subjects unworthy of discussion. The recent OpalCat/leather books debacle struck me as vaguely unfair to Opal - in purely logical terms. The analogy she used was of course emotive and highly charged, but IMO fairly apt if one holds a certain view re. animal rights. However, I guess one must remember that the SMDB is a conglomerate of people with emotions, not just logical automatons.
While I agree to an extent, the big difference is that Cecil is very good at what he does, and is able to jab while establishing a solid position and maintaining a humorous tone. On the other hand the quality of the sarcasm from some posters–including you–can be pretty low and rather useless for humorous purposes, or for most purposes other than making the speaker feel big while insulting and/or mocking someone or something.
It’s goshdarn easy to employ sarcasm, but it’s not so simple to use it effectively. And if you’re not using sarcasm effectively you’re effectively using it against yourself (platitude galore).
Because it wasn’t about you per se. I wasn’t trying to be ‘mysterious’ or oblique or anything like that. The OP talked about personal attacks in GD, then alternately listed 3 people as ‘amazing’.
now, you’re a rational debater, have data to support your position etc. However, as you yourself note, you are pretty acerbic, and rather blunt often w/your comments to other posters. I noted that it didn’t rise to the level of AH attacks.
Had I been making the point about posters not insulting other posters in debates, names I’d think of would include Kimstu, tomndeb, Polycarp, december, since I generally see them making efforts to remain polite.
This is not at all to say that acerbic, blunt, funny, chiding, comments are never appropriate.
Okay, the “dumbass” comment recounted in the OP (which apparently occurred in chat, mind you) is an ad hominem. But nearly everything else in there is just simple debate. Don’t go getting your feelings hurt just because someone else tells you you’re wrong, Erek. And you certainly don’t need to get upset just because someone is telling someone else (e.g., the Ms message board) that they’re wrong.
Scylla, you’re just jealous that he didn’t pick you as one of the board’s great luminaries.
And by the way, shit for brains, you didn’t even include an argumentum ad hominem* among your examples. There’s a wide world of difference between saying “you’re syllogism is wrong, shitstain” and an ad hominem fallacy.
The argument, “Maeglin, you clearly are ignorant of these matters because you are too stupid to code properly,” is an example of an argumentum ad hominem.
Maeglin’s example points out that a great many dopers don’t seem to know the difference between an ad hominem argument and simple namecalling. Saying that a poster is a butthead doesn’t qualify. Nor does pointing out that a poster’s writing reflects inexperience or naivete.
An argmentum ad hominem is a fallacy “in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.”
Example:
Poster A: I think capital punishment is wrong.
Poster B: You’re a waiter, what do you know?
For all you luminous posters out there, that feel left out by my “A” list, you can massage your egoes knowing that the reason I mentioned those three is they tend to post in the Israel/Palestine threads which if you’ve seen me post regularly, it was probably there, and they tend to post points that I agree with or if I don’t agree with them, make me question my beliefs on the subject. So while Polycarp is an amazing poster, I am not as involved in the threads where Christianity is bashed unfairly as he is, so I left out another great poster just because I used the ones that came to mind because they are the ones I’ve learned the most about a particular situation that I have a very vested interest in. Tomndebb are another poster that I’ve learned a lot about this particular situation from, and the list can go on, so I wouldn’t want anyone to feel left out, whether you deserve to be included or not.
Oh I understood, it just struck me as peculiar as I doubt there was any doubt as to who of the three. Mind you I was not offended, just thought it odd, above all as I know Jodi is no fan.
Well, I do get carried away at times, sometimes rhetorical flourishes go rather too far.
Andros: In response to your original statement, there is a difference between ad hominem and basic name calling this is true, however in this context calling someone a dipshit or a dumbass in the context of a political or philisophical debate is an attempt to belittle their point by belittling them. For instance if I were talking about Flan and he said he thought I was a dipshit, then it wouldn’t be the same, but in the context he said it, by his own admission he was saying it only to belittle me in that very moment with something completely irrelevant to the argument, though he chose to join the argument to deliver his little invective. Therefore, as wonderful as your little bit of insight is, it doesn’t apply in this case.
In otherwords, one doesn’t have to say specifically, “You’re a dipshit therefore you don’t have a point.” one just has to say “you’re a dipshit” in a particular context.
I just find it amusing what kind of animosity my thread on animosity has pulled out of the woodwork.
GoBear: Calling someone an asshole does not have the same meaning as callign someone a dipshit. Maybe I am wrong but I felt that calling me a dipshit was a way to discredit my opinion by attacking me personally, as the unabomber comment before it reinforced that idea.
Collounsbury, you are an acerbic bastard! (Who can’t spell)
I don’t really notice that much name calling in GD. And when it does happen, the mods are quick to point it out. Now, if someone thinks another persons opinions are stupid and that their facts are pulled out of that dank, dark orifice that is usually found smooshed up between your chair and your spine-- well, suck it up! Grow a thicker skin!
Just as we are grown up enough to engage in spirited debate, we are grown up enough to take a few shots to the ego and live to debate another day.
Erek, your sarcastic reply notwithstanding (hint: it’s hard to claim the moral high ground when committing the same offenses you decry) I understand your point. I think. Let me make sure I do:
Calling someone a “dipshit” is the same thing as calling them stupid. Calling someone stupid is an attempt to invalidate their argument.
Is that about right?
'Cos if so, I think you’re wrong, and I think it’s still no ad hominem fallacy. (You did read that link the gobear took the effort to post for you, right?)
See, your argument is not being dismissed because you’re called an idiot. On the contrary, you’re being called an idiot because your argument is being dismissed. In other words, you presented an argument that other people disagreed with. The argument, combined with its presentation, struck someone as stupid, and they said so.
So yes, it happens. Ya knwo what? It’s not only on these boards, it’s not only online, and it’s a fact of fucking life. Get right the fuck over it. You’re not special, people aren’t supposed to be nice to you, fucking deal with it instead of whining.
(gobear, are you offering me a game of pate-cake?)
(ok, that was weak)
