Dear Ken and Klaus,
could you please stop this debate in public, please. Even its
entertainment value is tending towards zero, meanwhile.
Thanks a lot,
Jonas
__________
At 11:13 Uhr +0100 28.01.2008, Ken Friedman wrote:
>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.
|