Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI agree completly.
The TOS is written in lawyerese. The main purpose is to cover the site legally. If all posts that fell under any of these categories were moderated, then moderation would be a full-time job.
The Social and Flame War Forums at GK were deleted because they became such a hassle for the mod to handle. Lawsuits were threatened and that was that!
This is a pretty nice Forum IMO.
Sure, i've been personally attacked and called names. No big deal, i'll no doubt have a bad day somewhere along the trail myself. I try to avoid it .. but it happens, so I understand when someone goes off with personal attacks in a thread subject as emotionally charged as Gay Marriage.
If I was born "gay" i'm pretty sure i'd be pissed too .. being considered "different" can't be a very good feeling.
Overall, I agree with the BigDog .. it is what it is. We, the posters, will determine the tone set.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHave you got an answer for me in the gay marriage thread yet?
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances ...[text shortened]... ): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
Just wondered...
Originally posted by dottewellI told you I haven't got the time. Sorry. Maybe it is a good idea to read the link/article I presented in the thread's firts post. If my memory serves me well nobody took the trouble to address it. The article's content is nonetheless the interesting subject of the thread. It is written from a liberal point of view and dares to overstep the usual lines of R.E.L. reasoning. I threw the gauntlet by claiming there are no liberal objections against gay marriage. Nobody reacted to this by telling me the articles content I presented in my first post contradicted my claim ..... he he ..... it took some reading to notice ..... he he ..... 😛 ..... I conclude that's why the thread's content isn't about the thread's subject at all. All or most of the posts are clearly off topic ....... 🙄
Have you got an answer for me in the gay marriage thread yet?
Just wondered...
It is a shame you chose that point to stop contributing. I was interested to hear your answer and felt others had misrepresented your position.
Still, if that is your wish, so be it.
[EDIT: Whatever your original purpose, I found much of the subsequent debate interesting.]
http://www.rhetor.com/compete/fallacies.htm
Abuse of the Arguer
(argumentum ad hominem)
Known classically and infamously as the argumentum ad hominem, this directive to the arguer exists in two forms. The first is abusive, and it refers to the attempt to disprove a claim by attacking the person who made the claim, as opposed to the claim itself. Since it is always directed to a person, it can be distinguished from invective, which can be directed at anything or anyone. Below is a mild example from Smoker's Advocate, a national newsletter that presents itself as "A Service of Phillip Morris, U.S.A."
1993 has been a busy year for the millions of smokers who have an interest in protecting the right to choose to smoke. Thousands upon thousands of letters and phone calls to legislators at all levels of government have reinforced the message that smokers are tired of being singled out for additional taxes, will no longer accept unreasonable conditions on when and where they can smoke, and will stick up for themselves when accosted by self-righteous antismokers.
Taken as part of the larger attempt to disprove the danger of ambient smoke, this passage simply attacks the non-smokers by referring to them as "self-righteous" people who "accost" others who have an interest in protecting their rights.
http://www.rhetor.com/compete/fallacies.htm
Originally posted by dottewellYou were trying to force me to accept your proposal ? Remember ?
So when I suggested you answer my question in another thread, and you asked if I was trying to be the "alfa" [sic] male, would that count as an ad hominem attack?
And if I took offence, would that have been a TOS infringement?
Originally posted by dottewellAnd if I took offence, would that have been a TOS infringement?
So when I suggested you answer my question in another thread, and you asked if I was trying to be the "alfa" [sic] male, would that count as an ad hominem attack?
And if I took offence, would that have been a TOS infringement?
You could alert the post and the mods would decide.
Originally posted by nicofelleNot necessarily.
Doesn't it actually have to say, "your argument is wrong [b]because you're stupid/you just want it to be right/etc."
Rather than actual insults themselves being ad homs, you have to say their position is wrong because you find fault with their person...[/b]