From: E. Shaun Russell (e_shaun@extropy.org)
Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 18:28:22 MST
Robert Bradbury wrote:
>I made such a case. If you consciously attack someone with the intent
>of having them seriously question whether their position is wrong,
>perhaps "wrong" as in "seriously evil" or based entirely on facts
>generally accepted as erroneous (e.g. "the holocost never happened",
>"we never landed on the moon", etc.), then you are doing it in an
>attempt to be of service to the other individual.
But the case you point out above does not need to be ad hominem to get the
point across. You can say: "The idea that we never landed on the moon is
absolutely ludicrous." or "There is a fundamental flaw in the argument that
we never landed on the moon. For example..." so why say: "You are an idiot
because you think that we never landed on the moon." or "Anyone who thinks
we didn't land on the moon is stupid." The idea itself is laughable, but
that doesn't mean that the person saying it has no mental value.
>For example, I think if in response to my proposed response to the 911
>attacks, someone had said, "Look Robert you blithering idiot, thats just
>wrong, you are such a complete asshole", I think the attack would
>have been justified.
I don't; what I think would have been justified would be a response like:
"Robert, the ideas you have presented on this issue are just plain
wrong. Why? Because..." Just because you have said something that most
people feel is without merit does *not* mean that *you* are without
merit. I've made some stupid posts before, and said arguably "dumb" things
at other times, but I don't expect someone to attack my character because
I've written or said those "dumb" things. If you challenge the ideas, the
holder of those ideas might change his mind. But if you attack that person
for holding those ideas, what recourse is there? Is he supposed to say:
"Yes, you're right. I am an idiot."?
Ultimately, this is an issue of semantics: what is defined as being "ad
hominem" and "zero tolerance." According to Webster's dictionary, ad
hominem is: "1) appealing to one's prejudice, emotions, or special
interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2) attacking an
opponent's character rather than answering an argument." I still cannot
think of any time where ad hominem can't be avoided.
Once again, I would like to stress that rules for their own sake are
abhorrent. But having been on this list for five plus years, and being the
list admin for the last year and a quarter, I can honestly say that I think
this policy is necessary and not a compromise of extropian values.
________________________________________________________
E. Shaun Russell Operations Officer, Extropy Institute
e_shaun@extropy.org http://www.extropy.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~K i n e t i c i z e Y o u r P o t e n t i a l~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:26 MST