* Ben Finney:
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <da...@druid.net> writes:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:38:50 +0100
"Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
However, although in this particular case the Ad Hominems
constituted logical fallacies, not all Ad Hominems are logical
fallacies.
Yes they are. Using the reputation of someone to prove or disprove
their claims is a logical fallacy.
The trouble is, the bulk of statements Alf is calling “ad hominem
attack” are, if one actually reads them, a criticism of his person. Not
intended as a connecting claim in an argument, but a claim *distinct
from* the argument Alf is engaged in.
That's false. Happily anyone can check back, e.g. up-thread here.
Judging by the last few months the number of persons engaging in ad hominem
attacks in this group is small, counted on one hand with possibly one finger
from the other hand to help. They're very active. But happily, few.
However, in the other non-moderated groups I participate in the number of such
persons is essentially *zero*, not counting sporadic visits from trolls.
So they're *not intended* to prove or disprove the specific claims that
immediately precede them. They're intended, at least partly, to provoke
self-reflection on the part of the person criticised and, ideally, an
improvement in behaviour.
And that's ad hominem, implying unacceptable behavior on my part, which if you
could back up you'd cited.
Failure to recognise a criticism as such, and instead repeatedly
flinging the term “ad hominem” around as though it has any bearing, is
an example of behaviour that could easily be improved, if only the
person engaging in it would stop.
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
