Posts: 241
Threads: 37
Joined: June 29, 2013
Reputation:
0
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?
The only freedom, is freedom from illusion.
Posts: 35389
Threads: 1439
Joined: March 15, 2013
Reputation:
152
RE: In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 2:27 pm
This entire original post is an ad hominem.
"What a little moonlight can do." ~ Billie Holiday
Posts: 241
Threads: 37
Joined: June 29, 2013
Reputation:
0
RE: In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 2:31 pm
(July 1, 2013 at 2:27 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: This entire original post is an ad hominem.
Yes it is.
What is your point?
The only freedom, is freedom from illusion.
Posts: 501
Threads: 7
Joined: June 3, 2013
Reputation:
13
RE: In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 2:35 pm
Posts: 6300
Threads: 78
Joined: May 14, 2011
Reputation:
82
RE: In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 2:47 pm
(July 1, 2013 at 2:24 pm)Koolay Wrote: 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.
So your oncologist would need to have had cancer for you to believe in her findings and knowledge? I'm smelling poisoning of the well here.. 
As for your notion on logic, logic is limited to the variables know to the person using logic.
When I was young, there was a god with infinite power protecting me. Is there anyone else who felt that way? And was sure about it? but the first time I fell in love, I was thrown down - or maybe I broke free - and I bade farewell to God and became human. Now I don't have God's protection, and I walk on the ground without wings, but I don't regret this hardship. I want to live as a person. -Arina Tanemura
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 2:47 pm
(July 1, 2013 at 2:24 pm)Koolay Wrote: 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.
The legitimacy of the arguer has no bearing on the legitimacy of the argument. Therefore, it is irrelevant and a fallacy when it is brought into the debate.
Posts: 241
Threads: 37
Joined: June 29, 2013
Reputation:
0
RE: In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 2:51 pm
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2013 at 3:09 pm by Koolay.)
(July 1, 2013 at 2:47 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: (July 1, 2013 at 2:24 pm)Koolay Wrote: 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.
So your oncologist would need to have had cancer for you to believe in her findings and knowledge?
Well actually, if they have never had cancer that would be a good testament to their knowledge on preventing cancer.
The only freedom, is freedom from illusion.
Posts: 6300
Threads: 78
Joined: May 14, 2011
Reputation:
82
RE: In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm
(July 1, 2013 at 2:51 pm)Koolay Wrote: Well actually, if they have never had cancer that would be a good testament to their knowledge on preventing cancer in the first place.
Good try, but I see two obvious flaws in your comeback. Firstly, oncologists focus on treatment of cancer, not prevention. Secondly, if your oncologist is a man, he will most likely contract prostate cancer during his lifetime and a woman might get due to unfortunate genes get breast cancer. Does it make them any less credible?
When I was young, there was a god with infinite power protecting me. Is there anyone else who felt that way? And was sure about it? but the first time I fell in love, I was thrown down - or maybe I broke free - and I bade farewell to God and became human. Now I don't have God's protection, and I walk on the ground without wings, but I don't regret this hardship. I want to live as a person. -Arina Tanemura
Posts: 2168
Threads: 9
Joined: June 21, 2013
Reputation:
27
RE: In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm
(July 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: (July 1, 2013 at 2:51 pm)Koolay Wrote: Well actually, if they have never had cancer that would be a good testament to their knowledge on preventing cancer in the first place.
Good try, but I see two obvious flaws in your comeback. Firstly, oncologists focus on treatment of cancer, not prevention. Secondly, if your oncologist is a man, he will most likely contract prostate cancer during his lifetime and a woman might get due to unfortunate genes get breast cancer. Does it make them any less credible?
Not to mention occupational exposures and other types of exposures throughout their lives, their general genetic makeup and so on.
Logic is logic regardless of who is presenting it.
I'll not fire every oncologist who's had cancer and hire people who's never had cancer before to take their place. That's crazy.
Posts: 5170
Threads: 364
Joined: September 25, 2012
Reputation:
61
RE: In Praise of Personal Attacks
July 1, 2013 at 3:22 pm
you dont seem to know what the word logic actualy means
|
