board77

I knew I couldn't be making this stuff up, so I went looking for people that have been discussing debate and debate tactics and such for thousands of years, and sure enough it was right there.

Now, granted, I imagine we are all familiar with the term "ad hominem attacks" and I must admit the term didn't come to mind when I was thinking about how to describe what I have been observing recently in this forum.

Personally, I always thought of the term when someone attributed a similar idea to a very bad group (the KKK, Nazi's, etc.), and therefore the idea was bad. This is a specific form of ad hominem, if it's used against a person, but is more accurately described as an "Association fallacy."

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Now, clearly, other than direct insults, all forms of "personal attacks" as we have defined them on Board77 fit under the umbrella of ad hominem, as it's kind of the meaning of the term.

However, I believe there is a significant number of ad hominem arguments that are currently NOT defined as "personal attacks" on b77, and that doesn't necessarily make the definition here wrong. However, it can lead to problems in debate.

I'm not very good at coming up with examples today, but i know a lot of ad hominem arguments have been flying my way over the last week, and I have objected to them strenuously .

I guess my question to the board is, do we want to allow ad hominem arguments in our debate here, or not? If not, do we need someone with authority to be able to do something about them when they threaten to derail a discussion?

The article at wikipedia is very detailed:
Ad hominem
Association fallacy

halplm wrote:

I guess my question to the board is, do we want to allow ad hominem arguments in our debate here, or not? If not, do we need someone with authority to be able to do something about them when they threaten to derail a discussion?

Question 1: I suspect not.

Question 2: Maybe. How does that authority get bestowed is the next question.

I thought of something to add. If an authority is added to police ad hominems, what controls need to be put into place that ensure that people's freedom of speech isn't inhibited?

Quote:

do we need someone with authority to be able to do something about them when they threaten to derail a discussion?

I believe that that's what rangers are for.

Well, that might be the answer to the third question, Crucifer, but clearly they do not have that authority now.

Yes they do. They can split such posts off into the bikeracks, which they do.

I thought of an example I believe clearly illustrates the problem as expressed given the currently defined "personal attack" vs an "ad hominem argument."

Poster A makes a statement about how circles are so much better than squares.

Poster B immediatly asks what credentials does A have that makes them an expert on circles and squares.

This is clearly not a "personal attack" as defined currently on b77. It is not attacking Poster A directly, and it is not directly claiming Poster A is unqualified to make such a statement. Both of which I believe would be labeled as "personal attacks."

However, it is very clearly an "ad hominem argument" in that it avoids the subject of circles and squares entirely, and focuses on Poster A and their qualifications, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.

This is more than likely very frustrating to Poster A.

And, if poster A decides to show poster B what a much more intelligent and reasonable person than poster B, they'll ignore said comment and get on with it.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and how they post. Using external devices is not the answer except in extreme cases of repeated attacks and disruptions. Something as subjective as "ad hominem attacks" is just going to open a can of worms. The rangers already spend more time policing than they should.
The last thing I want to be part of is the "ad hominem attacks" police. We would spend years trying to define what constitutes an attack and come to no good conclusion.

People "speak" in less than admirable styles on boards because there is a computer screen and hundreds and thousands of miles between posters and no real human interaction. The filters come off.
People need to realize that when posting and use some common sense and tact. Just like it would be if the person were in the same room with them.

actually, ad hominem arguments are pretty well defined. What is undefined is our "personal attacks."

It actually made a lot more sense to me where the difference in opinion was between myself and the rangers when I was able to look at clear definitions.

Crucifer wrote:

And, if poster A decides to show poster B what a much more intelligent and reasonable person than poster B, they'll ignore said comment and get on with it.

I believe you are missing the point.

The purpose of an ad hominem argument, is to derail the discussion, because Poster B has no good argument with Poster A's position.

Do we want, as a board, to continually support people who employ this method of "debate."

Or do we want to promote intellectually honest debate, and recognize when people use this method and stop them.

I didn't claim the answer was rangers and splitting threads. I dont' know what the answer is.

I think what you're looking for is a debate moderator. Rangers, as you've already pointed out, don't really have that power. Nor do we necessarily have the training to do it right.

Here's what we can do. If someone, anyone, can find some quality debating tutorials, post them to a special thread and a Ranger will sticky the thread. This probably won't stop any deliberate misbehavior, but it will at least lay out some guidelines and give people the tools they need to frame a good argument and to call others on bad arguments. It's really hard when you know something's not right but don't know how to communicate that, I know.

The problem, I think, Hal, is that what you perceive as an attack mightn't be perceived as such by others.

Now, we could say that we should deal with each problem according to their own definition of 'personal attack', but then, I could demand that Holby be banned, or something, for posting that "People need to take responsibility for themselves and how they post." after my post, which I could take as a personal attack. (This is purely for the sake of demonstration.) As you can see, this is totally unreasonable, and so, leads to all sorts of problems with posters who take a dislike to other posters abusing this rule etc.

The best we can have is what we do have: the rangers, who take authority from the charter and the board as a whole, coming to a decision as to what constitutes a personal attack, redefining according to the case if the previous definition is insufficient if needs be.

You could get involved in this process if you want, Hal. No one is stopping you from joining the ranger pool.

I would like to also point out that not every thread needs to be a debate. Discussion works well for a lot of posters. Exchanging of ideas etc. I am far more likely to listen, learn and be swayed by discussion rather than debate.

Well yes, of course, but to each their own. We can't change how someone else posts.

Crucifer wrote:

The problem, I think, Hal, is that what you perceive as an attack mightn't be perceived as such by others.

Now, we could say that we should deal with each problem according to their own definition of 'personal attack', but then, I could demand that Holby be banned, or something, for posting that "People need to take responsibility for themselves and how they post." after my post, which I could take as a personal attack. (This is purely for the sake of demonstration.) As you can see, this is totally unreasonable, and so, leads to all sorts of problems with posters who take a dislike to other posters abusing this rule etc.

The best we can have is what we do have: the rangers, who take authority from the charter and the board as a whole, coming to a decision as to what constitutes a personal attack, redefining according to the case if the previous definition is insufficient if needs be.

You could get involved in this process if you want, Hal. No one is stopping you from joining the ranger pool.

I thought that's what I was doing...

You'll note, or maybe now you'll note, that I have been very careful to use the term "ad hominem argument" as a distinction from "personal attack."

I'm not saying they are personal attacks. The frustrating thing for me personally, and why I have railed so hard at the inaction against a poster like SF, is that there is a loophole in the whole concept of "personal attack" that the ad hominem argument clearly defines. It gets around the letter of the law of personal attacks. It is not direct, and it is not an "attack" which has a violent connotation and it is difficult to see a relatively innocuous statement as an "attack." However, it violates the spirit of the law, which is that we all are able to post together peacefully and tangle wits and arguments and enjoy the subtleties of debate, and so we should stay on topic, and avoid belittling the people on the opposite side of the fence.

No, but you did say that 'ad hominem' is clearly defined. By the definition you give, they cause thread derailments. When that happens in a 'debate' thread, the irrelevant posts are more often than not split off, or, more usually, the poster involved ignores the 'ad hominem' and the thread continues anyway. So the problem, by your above definition and by common sense and ranger policy, are personal attacks.

I can see that 40 or 50 posts complaining about a particular poster might be considered an ad hominem attack.

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:

I can see that 40 or 50 posts complaining about a particular poster might be considered an ad hominem attack.

This, of course, is also true, but could be considered an ad hominem attack.

Quote:

Do we want, as a board, to continually support people who employ this method of "debate."

Or do we want to promote intellectually honest debate, and recognize when people use this method and stop them.

I didn't claim the answer was rangers and splitting threads. I dont' know what the answer is.

I think this is getting to the heart of the whole 'member-moderated' board thing...this means, of course, that our mod pool is pulled from our regular membership, but doesn't it also mean that we expect our members, by and large, to police themselves and each other?

Of course we don't want to see a lot of ad hominem debating here - it's a cheap tactic. I think a better solution than having a moderator step in and saying that isn't allowed here or whatever is to have the other members in the debate in question simply...not accept it. Point out the debating flaw and refuse to engage further with that poster until they stop engaging in those tactics.

This seems to me both much easier and much more in the spirit of the board than having the Rangers police the forum for proper debating tactic.

How do you propose closing this loophole without telling a person what to say? I think freedom of speech is the most important freedom around. I wouldn't want to see someone think that their freedom to opine is being thwarted.