Posted: Jul 18, 2016 9:36 pm
EquALLity wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
People tend to think I'm hostile because I don't treat other people's ideas with any respect if I find them lacking.
Also I can't stand it when people misrepresent each others position, even if it might be unintentional, because it's so easy to actually read what the other person is saying, or if need be, ask them what they mean.
So in that case I might be a bit brusque.
Just keep in mind that when I'm engaged in a discussion with you, it's nothing personal, at worst I'm only attacking your ideas, not you.
And I'd love if you did the same, because the only way we improve our views if people challenge them without compunction.
Ok, great.
To clarify, I don't think that including personal attacks within a valid argument is necessarily bad.[/quote]
That might be your opinion, but you'd be wrong. At least as far as rational discourse is concerned.
Attacking a person rather than their arguments does nothing whatsoever to refute their position or the arguments in favor of their position.
EquALLity wrote: It only becomes an ad-hominem if the personal attack replaces an argument or is used to dismiss one.
A personal attack is either name-calling or, if used as an argument, by definition an ad-hominem
You're not attacking the argument after, all but the person who made it.
Either way it's in no way conducive to rational discourse.