Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.

Search found 1 match

Return to: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

  • Author
  • Message
ape

January 17th, 2010, 2:13 pm

Hi Scott,


Great subject!
Fundamental subject!
:)

Because, as you say, the key to avoiding what is called "the ad hominem" aspect in any discussion or debate or argument between one or more people is to

Scott wrote:"generally have ***a lot of respect for each other*** and enjoy having the discussion in ***a friendly*** tone. In fact, it becomes very difficult to have a worthwhile philosophical discussion without ***a lot of respectfulness and friendliness.***"

asterisks by ape

then 2 things are immediately and automatically and self-evidently clear:

1. That the problem is DISRESPECT or HATE, since a friend LOVES AT ALL TIMES: Proverbs 17:17.
:idea:

2. That the problem is misnamed when it is called 'ad hominem.'
:idea:

A debate or discussion or argument is nothing if not AD hominem of itself: mano a mano: as in wrestling or boxing or golfing or a political race between 2 ADversaries or whatever.


So to then name the problem in terms of what has been already accepted is to misname it and is thus to guarantee no solution since the very accepted fact of the ad hominem is now used to deny the validity of ad hominem!
:idea:


Examples of this MISNOMERISM, which abound in a world where being hateful and disrespectful are the mis-accepted norm, are:

1.
Is to call HATRED of one race by another race RACISM rather than HATISM, and then have no desire nor possibility of changing the accepted race of anybody.
:idea:

2.
Is to call HATRED of Jews ANTI-SEMITISM rather than HATISM, and then have to condemn any one or more semites for having any debate or discussion or competition or chess-match in which one is pitted against the other for being anti-semitic!
:idea:

3.
Is to call the Bias of Respect the solution AND AT THE SAME TIME to say that the Bias of Disrespect is NOT the problem, as you do here below, while renaming it as 'ad hominem', which 'ad hominem' is a natural as applause when 2 hands are ad homineming or are in opposition to each other:
:idea:

Scott wrote:Also, calling the person who makes an argument *****biased***** is almost always an ad hominem fallacy.



It is the BIAS or the PREJUDICE of Disrespect which is the essential fallacy and is the ONLY cause AND ALWAYS THE CAUSE of lack of Respect in all ad hominem and pro hominem situations ---as in MALICE-AFORE-THOUGHT is ALWAYS the prejudical problem in all situations.


So based on what you wrote, the solution is clearly A LOT OF RESPECT and the problem is ANY DISRESPECT.

So you asked:

Scott wrote:What do you think? How do you stop yourself from making ad hominem arguments and personal attacks?


So that question shd really be:

How do you stop yourself from making DISRESPECTFUL OR HATEFUL arguments and DISRESPECTFUL attacks?


And actually, you already gave the right and only solution here using the right word:

Scott wrote:You can avoid using ad hominem arguments by trying ....to speak as nicely, politely, and *****respectfully***** as possible.

All asterisks by ape

Personally, my answer is in line with yours: :)

I stop myself from making DISRESPECTFUL or HATEFUL arguments and personal attacks of any kind by

Respecting myself and loving myself as all words and their opposites or AD hominems or ANTonyms or ADversaries or opponents or ANTagonists or enemies or CONTRAdictions or NON-allies or etc,

so that I auto respect and love all others as myself no matter who or what they are, whether known or unknown,

so that Love and Respect are my PREjudices or my BIASES or my PREjudgments or my A PRI-ori axioms or my PREdispositions or etc for myself and for all words and for all others at all times for all time,

and so that HATE and DISRESPECT are NOT EVER my BIASES nor PREjudices for myself nor for any words or persons nor places nor things at any time,

and so I will and can easily take whatever name I am explicitly called or described as or imlicitly called or described as in any ad hominem situation with the same Love and Respect for myself and the callers,

and commend the callers or namers for their honesty,

while, er, ah, with that Same Love and Respect reminding them that "IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE" just as Spell-Check works,
:) :idea:

and without even bringing up any thing about any ad-hominemism since to do so wd be to condemn myself for ad-homineming the ad-hominemer!
:) :idea:

and many other benefits too numerous to mention, except for this one:

At the same time, to always remind the caller/s that to hate me as any word means that they already hate and disrespect themsewlves as those words and so to encourage them to love and respect themselves as all words and their enemy-opposites,

thus educating and informing all the callers and all readers of HOW to love and respect themselves and so to love and respect me as a big fat WANTED bonus since I am already doing so for myself as NEEDED--which is at all times.
:idea: :)


So to give a few examples in one example by using the words you used:

I love and respect myself as

A friend and as an ad-enemy, as a lover and as a hater so I can love and respect all haters and all ADversarienemies as myself and teach them to hate the right thing: the hating of any word.

I love and respect myself as handsome/pretty and as ugly, as sophon and moron so I auto love and r all others as such, and auto-educate all others how to do so too for themselves.

BONUS:

Now Scott, you can easily substitute the words HATE and DISRESPECT and LOVE and HATE as necessary to render your essay totally consistent!
:) :idea:

For example, notice how this:

Scott wrote:Philosophical Discussion: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks
by Scott Hughes

Philosophical discussions generally consist of productive debate in which two or more people attempt to rationally argue for different sides of a question. They each try to think up and explain a logical argument in support of their position while constructively trying to offer logical rebuttals of the other person's position. Though called arguments, the philosophers generally have *****a lot of respect for each other***** and enjoy having the discussion *****in a friendly tone.***** In fact, it becomes very difficult to have a worthwhile philosophical discussion *****without a lot of respectfulness and friendliness.*****

asterisks by ape

perfectly flows into this like this:


Unfortunately, sometimes one person may use A LOT OF DISRESPECT and HATRED IN THEIR argument. A DISRESPECTFUL or HATEFUL argument consists of replying to a person's argument by merely attacking WITH DISRESPECT or HATE the character of the person making the argument. A DISRESPECTFUL or HATEFUL argument is also called a personal DISRESPECTFUL or HATEFUL attack or an DISRESPECTFUL OR HATEFUL insult. For example, if Joe claims that the sky is blue, Bob would be making a DISRESPECTFUL OR HATEFUL argument if he responded by saying, "No, it isn't because you are an ugly moron" IN DISRESPECT or IN HATE OF HIMSELF and OTHERS AS UGLY and AS A MORON.

OF COURSE IN LOVE AND IN RESPECT OF UGLY MORONS, HE WD NOT EVEN MENTION THIS FACT SINCE HE WD ALREADY KNOW THAT IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE,

and plus HE WD HAVE ALREADY REALIZED THAT HE ALSO BELIEVED THAT THE FIRST THING HE AS A WISE MAN KNEW WAS THAT HE HIMSELF WAS A MORON AND UGLY!


DISRESPECT OR HATRED is a fallacy, and it is illogical SINCE HATE HATES ITSELF and DISRESPECT DISRESPECTS ITSELF. Worse yet, it WILL cause the discussion to RE-break down into an unproductive name-calling IN A HATE AND DISRESPECT contest ONLY WHEN AND ONLY WHERE ANY CALLEE HAS THE SAME DISRESPECTFUL AND HATEFUL ATTITUDE TOWARDS HIMSELF SO THAT WE NOW HAVE 2 PROBLEMS.

This breakdown will not and can not happen when and where ONE party to the discussion or argument loves and respect himself as all words and so as all possible names.


So please carry on smartly, Scott! :)

And again, thanks for all you are!
:)

NB how this also helps you to make sense of what MrK said to you about PREJUDICE here:

MrK wrote:I agree, however, you seem to be talking about *****prejudice,***** and this *****always***** needs to be taken into account in argument where it is present.

asterisks by ape

and what Meleagar is saying to you--since he is simply and sincerely just using your very own words about literal and thus misnamed ad hominemism against you.
:idea:


Of course, this will help Mel too see how IF, he too disrespects or hates himself as a defamer or smearer or any word,

he too has the same biased or prejudicial attitude against you when he corrects you for prejudicially defaming his sources--with or without evidence really does not matter-- that is causing the further exacerbation of the original bad-enough problem of the Bias or Prejudice of Hate and Disrespect for self as any words in any of what is and has been an eminently normal and essentially natural ad hominem argument or discussion or philosophical debate between you two or anyone else.

Ciao ciao.

Return to: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Can't find what you are looking for? Try our custom Google search of this website.