posted December 06, 2005 02:31 PM         

""Beebuddy you posted this without good intent""

posted December 06, 2005 07:15 PM         

quote:

---

Linda Goodman was a triple Aries, and I highly doubt she shied away from arguments as you seem to advocate.

---

You got a point there. LOL. Putting Linda on a pedestal is not very logical either. She was human like the rest of us.

Actually, bee buddy's a little wrong. That ad homs are thought to be "bad debate" as he implies is a very recent development. If you read the debates of Roman orators (preferably in the Latin, and not some white-washed translation), for example, and you'll find a number of debate tactics now tsk tsk'd by the fallacy police and debate match moderators (both being the sort that really need to get over themselves anyhow).

posted December 06, 2005 08:21 PM         

"(both being the sort that really need to get over themselves anyhow)."

Your arguments defensibility is based on your opinion, please spare the rhetoric. Illegality of ad-homs is generally accepted.

In this case the "crying foul" was not happening. The name-calling and personal attacks on this forum were getting pretty terrible (and they weren't directed at "beebuddy".) It was pretty obvious that certain posters were flauting "good behavior", if you look closely "beebuddy's" motivations are posted clearly in this string.

"Linda Goodman was a triple Aries, and I highly doubt she shied away from arguments as you seem to advocate."

posted December 06, 2005 08:43 PM         

""Linda Goodman was a triple Aries, and I highly doubt she shied away from arguments as you seem to advocate.""

posted December 07, 2005 02:17 AM         

quote:

---

Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument

---

To make your best argument you used a statement you couldn't back up, which is that Linda Goodman, "understood the principles of proper debate."

----------------

With regard to "Ad hominem" lets look at it's definition for a sec:

"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"

Personal considerations are EXACTLY what the debate was over. Each person was personally considering how they felt about the issue at hand, and stating their reasons. There wasn't a whole lot of understanding from one side to the other, and there also wasn't a whole lot of interest in trying to understand in a lot of instances. Then there were deviations away from the subject altogether, which happens quite frequently here.

With regard to the common usage of the term, "ad hominem," which is unfairly attacking a person rather than the issue at hand, is that not what you are engaging in by posting these threads? We have the, "Why are you talking like fools?" thread in addition to this one. Aren't those both an attempt to put people in a worse light than yourself? Aren't they personal attacks spread to a general body of people? And can you agree that these threads of yours don't actually speak to the issue at hand in any way?

posted December 07, 2005 08:18 AM         

quote:

---

"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"

---

Couldn't one appeal to his or her personal cosiderations in a logical/reasonable manner?

Yes, Gemini Nymph, some people do use ad homs well, and I've seen many instances where you've been able to turn them around to expose the weakness of someone else's argument. So I would agree that, when used intelligently, there is a time and place. Unfortunately, some people just like to throw nasty insults around without supporting their opinions. It's annoying, offensive, and ridiculous. (That is not in reference to you, btw.)

I appreciated beebuddy's information... some of which was new to me. Ignorance can always be an opportunity to learn.

posted December 07, 2005 08:24 AM         

quote:

---

Linda Goodman understood the principles of proper debate and it's a shame not following her example ON HER SITE!

---

Beebuddy may have taken some liberties with this statement, based on personal inferences. Perhaps the information wasn't presented well, but does that make it invalid?

posted December 07, 2005 02:02 PM         

"the only fool bigger than the know it all is the one who tries to argue with him".

posted December 07, 2005 08:07 PM         

You said a lot, but suffice to say that there is no interest in getting people to stop arguing. There was an interest in seeing less of the tiresome nonsense that was dominating a place that used to be fun to visit. Nobody was ever ridiculed by "beebuddy", that is your imagination. There were no "groups" of individuals targeted for criticism. The criticism was focused on the idiotic personal attacks that began to flood this otherwise lovely forum.

posted December 08, 2005 01:57 AM         

quote:

---

and you'll find a number of debate tactics now tsk tsk'd by the fallacy police and debate match moderators (both being the sort that really need to get over themselves anyhow).

---

GN,

posted December 08, 2005 02:05 AM         

quote:

---

We have the, "Why are you talking like fools?" thread in addition to this one. Aren't those both an attempt to put people in a worse light than yourself? Aren't they personal attacks spread to a general body of people?

---

posted December 08, 2005 03:09 AM         

quote:

---

it wasnt because I thought it would put me in a better light than anyone else.

---

Nor did I say that about you, and in that thread people decided to have fun with it instead of taking it seriously. That's cool.

quote:

---

Love how people see the worst possible thing going on in others motives.

---

I just don't see it as handy dandy to hang outside of the debate calling people fools, and then using Linda Goodman to try to push debate ideas. It's impractical. Those who don't have sense enough not to make it personal (use ad hominem attacks) aren't going to all of a sudden learn it.

I'm not even close to the worst offender in this matter of 'ad hominem' attacks either. That's not where this is coming from. I'm not posting here because I personally feel judged. What I'm saying is that if you want peace, and if you want the fighting and the foolishness to stop, you get involved. You don't stand outside and do these things.

Beebuddy says, "Nobody was ever ridiculed by "beebuddy", that is your imagination." And then goes on to say, "The criticism was focused on the idiotic personal attacks that began to flood this otherwise lovely forum."

Those idiotic personal attacks were levied by people who don't know better. They are unpleasant, and take away from the actual purpose of the debate. However, and maybe this is a matter of opinion, I don't think you teach those people by posting a site with debating definitions. If you really want to teach them, you don't fall for the personal attack, and instead try to force them into meaningful dialogue about the subject you're discussing.

PurpleScorp did it well today:

quote:

---

Dear Mystic Gemini,
We all have so much to share at LL. We are all different, yet, it is wonderful that everybody is equally able to express their opionion; and we can all learn by each other's experiences.

I have noticed that you have an interesting communication method.

I was just wondering why in some of your posts you choose to personally attack people? And, when you make this choice, are you consciously aware that it may in fact alter your message and the energy of your post?

If you don't feel comfortable addressing these issues, then that's okay. But, I was just curious to know, that's all.

with love
purple_scorp

---

No new thread, lots of humility, and an unarguable premise. That's the good stuff in my opinion.

--------------

quote:

---

I think we could say that about quite a few people on the site. Not just a couple of Moderators. Dontcha think?

---

posted December 08, 2005 03:44 AM         

Criticising posts is in no way the same thing as ridiculing individuals. Heck, there weren't even any invdividual posts that were criticised or ridiculed.

""and instead try to force them into meaningful dialogue""

And as for this... realistically, there isn't much that is considered as big of a waste of time as trying to force anyone to do anything.

""What I'm saying is that if you want peace, and if you want the fighting and the foolishness to stop, you get involved. You don't stand outside and do these things.""