In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 2:24 pm
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2013 at 2:27 pm by Koolay.)
I think a lot of people are too quick to dismiss discussing personal aspects in an argument, calling 'ad hominem' when someone has doubts as to the legitimacy of the arguer.
In a debate, you are selling logic to another person - so surely the person should be logical if he/she believe the advice?
For example, if a nutritionist proposed the best possible diet for humans, yet was obese. Or a financial advisor telling me how to spend your money but was homeless. Needless to say there would be scepticism as to the legitimacy of that person's claim to be proficient in these fields, since their personal life reflects the opposite.
There was a recent case of two life coaches committing suicide.
In these cases, one of two things are occuring:
A) Either the advice is incorrect
B) They don't have belief in their advice.
Neither are good. Personal life can provide content for discussion in a debate.
If someone insults you rather than correctly addressing the reason or evidence, are they really logical as they claim?
If someone brings what they like rather than what is true into a debate, are they really logical as they claim?
If someone lazy and wants more subsidies for the poor, are they really arguing from logic?
If someone rich wants more subsidies for the rich, are they really arguing from logic?
In a debate, you are selling logic to another person - so surely the person should be logical if he/she believe the advice?
For example, if a nutritionist proposed the best possible diet for humans, yet was obese. Or a financial advisor telling me how to spend your money but was homeless. Needless to say there would be scepticism as to the legitimacy of that person's claim to be proficient in these fields, since their personal life reflects the opposite.
There was a recent case of two life coaches committing suicide.
In these cases, one of two things are occuring:
A) Either the advice is incorrect
B) They don't have belief in their advice.
Neither are good. Personal life can provide content for discussion in a debate.
If someone insults you rather than correctly addressing the reason or evidence, are they really logical as they claim?
If someone brings what they like rather than what is true into a debate, are they really logical as they claim?
If someone lazy and wants more subsidies for the poor, are they really arguing from logic?
If someone rich wants more subsidies for the rich, are they really arguing from logic?
The only freedom, is freedom from illusion.