29 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyExactly.
Context point being that preconceptions about the frame/person in front blur or obscure
or negate or distract objective focus and any serious consideration of the picture/idea?
EDIT: One read-through was all that was necessary, too. Weird, huh.
30 Jan 10
1 edit
In his surprisingly open post over in the "I Just" thread, Blackamp illustrates almost to the letter the point of this thread. Here, Blackamp is describing his wholesale rejection of GB's posts on the basis of his knowledge of that which informs GB's posts. Note the italicized portions:
i would characterise it rather as a keen interest in dis-covering and drawing attention to the underlying communicative purpose of texts as i perceive them. people can read the original post - and my interpretation, if they can be bothered - and make up their own minds. the smart kids of course can interpret for themselves, but there are some others here who seem easily taken in by dressed-up nonsense. one or two of these are apparently hopeless cases that just seem incapable of seeing beyond the surface meaning of texts,.
i can, however, only do this interpretation in cases where i perceive a discrepancy between the prima facie communicative purpose of a post, and an underlying communicative purpose: that is, posts that are, in a sense, deceitful - linguistic trojan horses, if you will - even tho they may contain no untruths of fact. posts that contain 'spin' or which are leading in some way. for another example, think of how political parties routinely 'spin' various events to suit their own purposes. it just so happens that one particular poster here is supernova-like in this regard, imho. of course, others may disagree with my interpretations, but there is remarkably little, if any, reasoned response with reference to the original text along those lines.
i'd like to do a book about 'Pathological Communications' some day. i think there is a lot of spin out there even in everyday life. there's probably even some spin in this very post. it's hard to completely avoid being self-serving in some contexts.
This demonstrates a textbook version of the ad hominem being applied to the person who has come to represent the ideas rejected. Blackamp is openly admitting that he has no issues with the topic, per se, and is neither describing any issue directly related to GB's person. Instead, his constant barrage of ad hominem attacks are, in his mind justified by virtue of what he perceives as the deceitfulness of the efforts.
30 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour almost simplistic 'picture and Frame / frame and Picture' metaphor delivered a concrete objective corellative,
In his surprisingly open post over in the "I Just" thread, Blackamp illustrates almost to the letter the point of this thread. Here, Blackamp is describing his wholesale rejection of GB's posts on the basis of his knowledge of that which informs GB's posts. Note the italicized portions:
[quote]i would characterise it rather as a keen interest in dis-c mind justified by virtue of what he perceives as the deceitfulness of the efforts.
lending permanent life and value to this conversation in my view. Point elaborated in this post mortem comment
evokes the picture of a permanently creased washboard forehead now incapable of letting a new thought through.
30 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are introducing a straw man in that say, VP Gore says mankind is causing the climate to go to hell in a handbasket and you say, Gore, you are an assshole and further, you don't even try to save energy at your own home, you use 2 megawatts just to keep your mansions going.
Maybe I was a bit cryptic. But my point was that it's called ad hominem not because attacking the character of your interlocuter is "wrong" but because you are not addressing the issue itself.
I agree that the animosity has (usually) its origins in the difference of ideas, but the "ad hominem" is simply meant that you're directing your argument at " (or the equivalent correct form in Latin 😵) would convey the meaning more explicitly.
He just deflects the argument away from the protagonist statement to attempt to lead the audience to think if what he says is true, then the background problem mentioned by VP Gore is also not valid, which of course is a totally separate issue. Yes, Al Gore might be a world class assshole and yes maybe he uses 2 megawatts personally, that does not detract from the statement that perhaps mankind is causing the deterioration of the background climate we all depend on for food and clean air and clean water.
Regardless of the validity of that claim, the attack on VP Gore is Ad Hominem.
Which is the usual modus operandi of that OTHER assshole, Rush Limbaugh🙂