Do you understand the difference between the critiquing of an argument and a personal attack?

Yes I do and most of the time I know myself enough to pick well where I want to tread.

This is such an important distinction. As the frequency of such accusations goes up, the level of intelligent discourse invariably decreases. The same is true of people who use straw man arguments and who discard arguments because of the habits of the presenter, rather than focusing on the arguments themselves (“What do you mean eating meat is immoral? You must be wrong- you are wearing leather shoes!”)

Certainly. One shows a level of respect (“I disagree, and here is why…”), while the other shows a distinct lack thereof (“You are stupid.”).

Sounds like you are having fun here.

Attack the message, not the person presenting it.

I certainly do, and I will admit I have crossed that line a time or two myself. I’m not excusing bad behavior, just explaining it. If I have had many prior conversations with you and based on those, I believe you to be stupid, when we have the next one I might call you stupid. Wrong? Yes. Honest? Yes.

@augustlan , yes there is a distinct lack of respect. For example, I don’t respect very many conservatives and when I get into debates/arguments with them, depending on how obnoxious they are, I may feel as if they don’t deserve to be respected.

@crisw
And these people happen to mostly be one and the same. It just irks me to see someone make a very good point in a discussion and the other perceives it as an attack. I know that studying all the fallacies helped me a great deal, as well as a few critical thinking courses.

@The_unconservative_one I would argue, respectfully ;-), that everyone deserves some respect… even those who don’t offer you the same. From my perspective, showing a lack of respect causes more harm than good in any argument, and not only with the one you are disrespecting. Others, observing such behavior, will be less likely to give your argument the respect it deserves, thus harming your cause.

@dalton
Oh I am quite honestly, just trying to eliminate irrationality(even my own).

yes.

@augustlan
While you are correct that it usually does inhibit others to rationally analyze the arguments at hand, as crisw said earlier, it should not deter attention away from the argument being presented. People are dicks, assholes, and pussies, but that does not make their argument invalid. ;)

@JamesL It shouldn’t affect the argument, but it does. Pragmatically speaking, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. ;-)

@augustlan I know you are correct, INTELLECTUALLY, but emotionally, I have a hard time being phony. I can’t pretend to respect someone who I think is is a vile, misanthropic, racist, homophobic, lying asshole.

@JamesL ,My friends will tell you, I will give anything to, do anything for, and defend to the death anyone I consider a friend. Conversely, my detractors will tell you that I am a complete asshole to them. They are also correct. I love hard, and I hate equally as hard. I use the word hate for lack of a better term. I don’t really hate the person, I hate what they stand for.

@augustlan
Oh and I rightfully agree with you on that.

@The_unconservative_one
I get ya, as I have many friends that have the characteristics in which you describe. I tend to be more emotionally subtle but occasionally feel the need for more emotion when a point needs to be driven home.

I think it is good to make “I” statements, they explain my position. I also think it is good to try to remember that to say something once is stating my opinion, to repeat the same thing over and over is to be an overbearing control freak. I try to say it once and then get out, it is hard sometimes though!!!

@JamesL I think there is a need for subtlety at times, and at other times there is a need for my approach.

@The_unconservative_one
And you are on the spot with a basic life principle of mine, balance.

It is all in the tone of what is being said. It is so much easier for me to address the question at hand rather than resorting to personal attacks.
I have found that when things turn to personal attacks any real chance of a productive discussion has been lost.

@JamesL together, we achieve balance. Alone, I am not balanced, I am pure agression towards what I believe is wrong. I am like a modern day Man of LaMancha. Except, my windmills are very real.

@kelly27 If I know you to be an idiot, I am likely to tell you that you are a idiot. You, on the other hand, may know a person to be an idiot, but for reasons of being genteel, won’t say it.

@The_unconservative_one Believe me, I have had my moments of calling people on their bullshit, but I just find in rather unproductive in the end. Odds are if I am at the point that I need to point out to someone that they are an idiot, they already know it and me sinking to that level just brings me down, not them.

@Kelly27 I can see and understand your point, as I told @augustlan , but I am an emotional being, and I can’t be phony. I’m sure you remember Drew R.and the flying guber. I think they are both as dumb as a bucket of dicks, and I can’t pretend that they are anything but.

um yes…? thanks for the lesson…?

(i would like to point out though that post civil rights and post feminist movement, the ad hominem attack is much more complicated because if their claim is true – that knowledge is inextricably attached to identity – then it is difficult to distinguish knowledge which is a cultural construct from the person holding said knowledge.—for more PM me… i have a lot to say about this theory) ;-)

“Dumb as a bucket of dicks” is pretty funny.

Yep.

@alive – Interesting. That really indicates that a person is nothing but a social construct. A completely different mindset is taken in postmodern debate, huh? Have you ever taken this approach on Fluther, out of curiosity? I don’t think it’d go down well unless you explain your intentions.

PS – I don’t want to PM @alive about this because it is very much on topic, and we may as well discuss it publicly. The line between a person and their ideas/beliefs/opinions is blurred in postmodernism, as far I understand it.

@shadling21 yes, everything got messy…really messy thanks to the postmodernists! gotta love ‘em though! haha

i don’t think it is on topic because the “question” after reading the details just seemed like a dead end statement

BUT! here is just a quick thought

knowledge does not just “happen” or appear out of nowhere. it must be validated through a process. it is humans that go through that process, therefore knowledge is “apart” of us.

feminists and postmodernists and some other theorists like non-white, non-male, non-straight, etc might argue that the process of validating knowledge cannot be taken out of its cultural, historical, and social contexts—

Then Knowledge is not separate from our existence. We are knowledge. Therefore, the ad hominem attack becomes necessary, or at least intertwined with the ‘regular’ attack on the argument. The two are inseparable… just a thought.

Cool stuff. A postmodern argument would be interesting to be a part of (for someone so used to the normal way of thinking).

Good point about the thread. It isn’t a very open-ended question.

Yep. It all has to do with the tone in which it is said, like Kelly said. Some people have no tact in respectfully disagreeing with someone, which quickly leads to personal attacks. I’ve seen it many times.

I have seen far too many people shout ‘ad hominem!’ when they should have been fixing the ad baculum, ad numerum, petitio principii, or tertium non datur fallacies in their argument instead.

@augustlan
From my perspective, showing a lack of respect causes more harm than good in any argument, and not only with the one you are disrespecting. Others, observing such behavior, will be less likely to give your argument the respect it deserves, thus harming your cause.
Well stated

critiquing an argument: I respectfully disagree with your point.
personal attack: you are a stupid poo-poo head.

Yep, I understand the difference.

Yes I do, as long as the person critiquing is respectful enough to refrain entirely from personally attacking comments, which cannot be said of all people.

@cwilbur stated: “I have seen far too many people shout ‘ad hominem!’ when they should have been fixing the ad baculum, ad numerum, petitio principii, or tertium non datur fallacies in their argument instead.”

Everyone seems to skip over that point.

Oh, and this just reminded me. I’ve also been accused of “meta-arguing” and of ad hominem attacks when I pointed out the fallacies in the argument. No, it’s not my duty to respond to a string of fallacies; when you fix the fallacies and come up with an argument, then I’ll respond.