Starting immediately, when I use a quotation as a method of expressing myself, I will no longer cite it as having been written by a different person. Therefore, barring having heard it before, you will no longer be able to tell whether I am quoting someone else or using my own words. Your only basis for argument will be the ideas themselves; any ad hominem attacks will be against me only (and therefore confinable to the Pit).
This only applies to quotations that I agree with, and that I am quoting directly as a substitute for rewriting it in my own words. It will not apply to any cites of authoritative sources.
My rationale is that in the future, I would enjoy debating based on ideas, and not based on irrelevant ad hominem attacks on the persons whose words I borrow. It does not advance the debate, to say the least, to (for example) drop a political attack on a Canadian author into a thread on monetary policy.
Well, as long as the quotes are actually, you know, quoted (set apart in quotation marks or the quote code), and you henceforth reserve such quoting for comments by others (i.e., don’t mix your own quotes in this way), I don’t see why this would be a problem.
Ad hominem is a great debating tactic, especially if someone is arguing from a provincial standpoint. If someone is to benefit from the actions reflected by his views, then yes he should be attacked by this standpoint, if his views when enacted doesn’t benefit at all the one attacking such views.
I see your logic (I see no problem saying that you “know” something so long as you don’t claim to have done the research yourself), however it is likely that before too long someone will ask you for a citation (I am guilty of this myself on many occassions).
I can only speak for myself but I do not immediately launch ad-hominem attacks on the authors of people cites…of course that depends on the source. Somestimes when the source is reputable I actually learn something (always nice). At other times when the source is (at least in my humble opinion) not reputable I will point out flaws or my concerns.
But I could see your approach breaking down the moment you mention something as scientific “fact”
Avalon: Like i said, I’m not talking about cites, I’m talking about quotations; that is to say, opinions which are being stated in someone else’s words.
Capacitor: Very well. I will therefore assume that all future ad hominem attacks reflect an inability to refute a position on its merits, and the resulting necessity to attack the personal merits of its exponent. Rather pathetic, if you want my opinion, but it’s your choice.
MGibson: Usually because I like the way other people have said it better than any way I could put it.
Go nuts, donuts. If I feel that the originator of a certain quote is important (perhaps I want to use it myself some time in the future), I’ll ask. Though I can’t envision having to do this.
However, if you’re focusing an argument around such quotes, you should still cite a source. Of course, you knew that
Well, that’s definitely plagiarism, which against board rules.
Are you talking about quotes in which you make it clear that you agree with everything that is said? If so, then even if you were to insclude the author, there would be few ad hominem attacks that would not reflect on you (i.e. “Only an idiot could believe that!” would probably be considered a personal attack by the moderators). If you are trying to avoid ad hominem attacks that impeach the reliability of the source (sorry if I’m using the legal term incorrectly, I’ve gathered its meaning solely through context), then your stated intentions will not be very helpful in supporting your argument. After all, the whole reason someone might dispute the reliability of your source is because you are, either explicitly or implicitly, claiming that such reliability supports your position. Your plan avoids attempts to diminish this reliability by not presenting any such reliability to support your argument. It’s a bit like avoiding cross examinations by not presenting any witnesses.
Hmm. As I explained above, the main reason someone would want to make ad hominem attacks is if you’re using the source as an authority. So exluding authoritative sources from this policy would seriously reduce its effectiveness. I suppose that your rationale is that is your are using a source as an authority, there might be legitimate reasons to dispute the reliability of the source, but if not, then there aren’t. But why go to such lenghts to prevent others from making fools of themselves?
No, not really… one time I was arguing about the nature of money, and I quoted an author because I agreed with the quotation - the next thing I knew, someone was insulting the integrity of the author. Understanding what you are saying, I responded that I wasn’t using the author as an authority, therefore ad hominem attacks against him were irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Another time I quoted something I’d read on the internet once, not because I thought of it as an authority, but because I liked the way the person had put it. Someone immediately shot back: “Who is this guy? Why should we listen to him?” I responded: “I put that quotation in for its content (Yes! Words have content!) and put his name there for bibliographical reference. For the purposes of argument, you may assume that his opinion is the same as my own, and debate on those grounds, if it please you.”
Since I find it tiresome to have to do this every time I use one of my vast stock of quotations, I will simply cease to cause myself the necessity of doing so by ceasing to cite them as quotations.
Because I find it annoying.
Very rarely have I needed to cite authorities when I am making ethical arguments, and when I do they are usually quite plainly marked as such.
Don’t use a person’s words unless you’re prepared to accept the baggage that comes with them. You might like the sound of “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” but if you use it, the reader has every reason to take it that you’re invoking Freud’s theories of dream interpretation and phallic symbolism.
Frequently, people will say, “God is dead” and when someone who has actually read Nietzche points out that he didn’t mean this was a good thing, it’s dismissed as beside the point. But if you take words out of context, and then insist that they not be put back into context, you are insisting on that anything anybody says be treated with the shallowest interpretation, just to save yourself the bother of having to explain how your views differ from those of the person quoted. I wouldn’t call it plagiarism unless you were quoting long passages, but it’s lazy and dishonest and don’t be suprised if you get called out for it.
If you’re going to use quotes without properly citing the person who said it, why use quotes at all? Why not just summarize what they said in your own words?
Matt, having a couple of posts jumped on by a-holes is no reason to forsake the decencies of debate yourself, which among other things mandates the use of quotes when you are quoting someone.
The biggest problem I have with your proposed new policy is, what if you “parrot” someone else’s words (because, face it, that’s the term we use to mean “quoting someone without seeming to understand that it’s a quote”), and someone else picks up that it’s a quote that you just said (“Hey, I recognize that, it’s from Wealth of Nations, but why didn’t he attribute it?”) but he didn’t happen to read this “announcement” thread, and so HE doesn’t know that YOU know that it’s a quote, and he calls you on it, or else he thinks you are just a Big Stoopid for quoting someone without attributing it, or for not knowing that it’s a quote (“Idiot! It’s Adam Smith!”), or else HE thinks that YOU must think you are pretty hot stuff, trying to pass off Adam Smith’s stuff as your own, and here comes an ad hominem attack on you for being a Big Stoopid, and it’s just generally a mess.
At any rate, you might redirect an anticipated ad hominem fallacy from yourself to the person you plagiarize, but in the process, you yourself run the risk of committing all manner of fallacies, like the ignoratio elenchi cited above by Johnny Angel.
You might redirect an anticipated ad hominem fallacy from yourself to the person you plagiarize, but in the process, you yourself run the risk of committing all manner of fallacies.
Ignorantio elenchi, here, being the error of stating an opinion that Libertarian doesn’t like, and not to be confused with the logical fallacy ignorantio elenchi of arriving at conclusion irrelevant to the case at hand.
