I agree with you, Rebecca. Ad Hominem isn't just about insult and attack.
It's can also be about moving the argument from the issues discussed to
discrediting the other speaker by making unfounded claims about her or his
ethos -- or character (ie, motives, intentions, etc).
I have found, Henry, and I think Rebecca agrees with this, that you've
tried several times to put words in my mouth and to impute things about my
motives, character, etc. Sorry but that's the way we see it.
I've enjoyed this exchange this afternoon as I've been doing work at home,
but as I said, I feel that we're talking past each other at this point,
Henry. Also, thanks to you, Rebecca, for your clarity.
Gabe
At 04:17 PM 4/4/2003 -0500, Henry Gould wrote:
>Rebecca writes:
>
>"My comment was to draw attention to the way you turned the discussion
> from replying to Gabe's points about various things to telling him
> was his own "aim" was in making those points. It's a device
> whereby instead of replying to the point at hand, the focus becomes
> the person and supposition about his or her intent, aim, or
> motive. It's just simply a subtler ad hominem attack, though
> it attacks not the person but the person's psychology, "aim,"
> "intent" "motive." "
>
>No, Rebecca, you are mistaken. An ad hominem attack is a personal
>insult. Statements posted in debate & controversy MUST be interpreted for
>meaning, intent, argumentative motive. I think Gabriel would agree with
>this. It is important not to confuse these; to do so is itself an
>illegitimate means of defending statements.
>
>That is, when someone says, "Your interpretation of the purpose or motive
>for my argument is a personal insult", this in itself is an assertion which
>requires a proper defense. If you are personally insulted simply because I
>characterize your postings as propaganda, you are confusing debate with
>personal affront or insult.
>
>Henry
|