Dear Klaus,
The ad hominem argument is not your argument on my views or logic.
The ad hominem argument involves specific comments on my person in
which (1) you state that it is barely worth your time to debate me,
(2) un-named others tell you that I distort what is being said, etc.,
and (3) state by implication that I am careless in judgments and
treat colleagues and list members disrespectfully.
Even you are correct in these judgements, this would be ad hominem
argument -- an argument on personal qualities or characteristics.
To contemplate alternative possibilities, let's imagine that all this
is true. I may be a worthless opponent in debate. Many may feel that
I distort what is being said, and they may be right. They may tell
you that I justify singular points with lengthy citations from
dictionaries. Now I've imagined that I am placing ideas in context,
using the dictionary to illustrate common meanings, but I may be
mistaken and they may be correct. They may also be correct in telling
you that I hide my opinions behind objective terms. I may be careless
in judgement, and disrespectful to my colleagues and to people on the
list.
If all these things are so, they remain ad hominem claims, claims
about my person. Even the dictionary claim remains ad hominem as you
use it, since neither you nor the others show that I use citations
merely to justify singular points, as contrasted with using the
etymology and reception of words as one link in a larger discourse.
You did not simply show me where my argument on incorrect syllogism
was not so. To say that something "isn't so" is an objectivist claim,
and you have every right to make it. But you did more. You made
claims about my person, explicit and implicit, further asserting that
others hold similar beliefs, argumentum ad populum.
If your purpose is to discuss my person, fire up those lightning
bolts. But please acknowledge that these are arguments about my
personal qualities and failings rather than arguments to the issues I
propose.
Yours,
Ken
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>dear ken,
>
>i agree, it's wise to cool this line of arguing: blaming me in several posts
>for incorrect syllogisms, and when i point out that this isn't so, you see
>it as an ad hominem attack, complaining about your person ....
>
>klaus
>
Klaus wrote earlier these comments that I label ad hominem:
(1)
> >it's barely worth my time to engage with you in public debates about
>>things that may not matter to other participants in this list, but it
> >bothers me and
(2)
>i have been told by others as well how you so often
>>distort what is being said and justify your singular point with lengthy
> >citations from dictionaries, hide your opinions behind objective terms,
(3)
>just be a little careful with your judgments and treat you colleagues and
>people on the list with some respect.
|