“Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.”
My original argument, that Luke took so much exception to, was one made by many people in the history of civilisation: is it censorship when a community of people collectively vote in such a way that a dissenting voice becomes inaudible? For example, if all members of Congress were to shout loudly when a particular member got up to speak, drowning out their words, would this be censorship, or just their exercise of a community vote against that person? The question is debatable, and many people would agree that it is a quite sinister form of censorship.
So my point about censorship shared a heritage with something that has been said my others, on countless occasions.
Now, did Luke accept that MANY people would agree that this kind of “shouting down” of a voice was tantamount to censorship?
Far from accepting that this is a commonplace, he called my comment “misleading to the point of being dishonest”. That is not a reference to the question of whether the point was or was not valid, it was a reference to my character. My level of honesty. Which is the standard definition of an ad hominem.
But of course, he went much further than this simple ad hominem. He said: “Richard, I find your comment to be misleading to the point of being dishonest, similar to the level of dishonesty in the messages that got you banned from the SL4 mailing list: http://www.sl4.org/archive/0608/15895.html″
This is also an example of a “Poisoning the Well” attack. Guilt by association.
Furthermore, he makes a slanderous claim of bad character. He refers to ”… the level of dishonesty that got you banned from the SL4 mailing list”. In fact, there was no dishonesty in that episode at all. He alludes to the supposed dishonesty as if it were established fact, and uses it to try to smear my character rather than my argument.
But, in the face of this clear example of an ad hominem attack (it is self-evident, hardly needing me to spell it out), you, shminux, see nothing. In fact, without explaining your reasoning, you go on to state that you find more evidence for ad hominem in my original remarks! I just looked again: I say nothing about anyone’s character (!), so how can there be evidence for me attacking someone by using an ad hominem?
Finally, Luke distorted the quote of the conversation, above. He OMITTED part of the conversation, in which I supplied evidence that there was no dishonesty on my part, and that there was massive evidence that the banning occurred because Yudkowsky needed to stop me when I suggested we get an outside expert opinion to adjudicate the dispute. Faced with this reply, Luke disappeared. He made only ONE comment (the one above) and then he ignored the reply.
He continues to ignore that evidence, and continues to slander my character, making references to “Indeed, given Richard’s reaction (which with a bit more research I might have predicted), I regret having raised the issue with him at all.”
For example, if all members of Congress were to shout loudly when a particular member got up to speak, drowning out their words, would this be censorship, or just their exercise of a community vote against that person?
One thing to note is that your comment wasn’t removed; it was collapsed. It can still be viewed by anyone who clicks the expander or has their threshold set sufficiently low (with my settings, it’s expanded). There is a tension between the threat of censorship being a problem on the one hand, and the ability for a community to collectively decide what they want to talk about on the other.
The censorship issue is also diluted by the fact that 1) nothing here is binding on anyone (which is way different than your Congress example), and 2) there are plenty of other places people can discuss things, online and off. It is still somewhat relevant, of course, to the question of whether there’s an echo-chamber effect, but carefull not to pull in additional connotations with choice of words and examples.
shminux.
I refer you to http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx for a concise summary of argument fallacies, including ad hominem...
“Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.”
My original argument, that Luke took so much exception to, was one made by many people in the history of civilisation: is it censorship when a community of people collectively vote in such a way that a dissenting voice becomes inaudible? For example, if all members of Congress were to shout loudly when a particular member got up to speak, drowning out their words, would this be censorship, or just their exercise of a community vote against that person? The question is debatable, and many people would agree that it is a quite sinister form of censorship.
So my point about censorship shared a heritage with something that has been said my others, on countless occasions.
Now, did Luke accept that MANY people would agree that this kind of “shouting down” of a voice was tantamount to censorship?
Far from accepting that this is a commonplace, he called my comment “misleading to the point of being dishonest”. That is not a reference to the question of whether the point was or was not valid, it was a reference to my character. My level of honesty. Which is the standard definition of an ad hominem.
But of course, he went much further than this simple ad hominem. He said: “Richard, I find your comment to be misleading to the point of being dishonest, similar to the level of dishonesty in the messages that got you banned from the SL4 mailing list: http://www.sl4.org/archive/0608/15895.html″
This is also an example of a “Poisoning the Well” attack. Guilt by association.
Furthermore, he makes a slanderous claim of bad character. He refers to ”… the level of dishonesty that got you banned from the SL4 mailing list”. In fact, there was no dishonesty in that episode at all. He alludes to the supposed dishonesty as if it were established fact, and uses it to try to smear my character rather than my argument.
But, in the face of this clear example of an ad hominem attack (it is self-evident, hardly needing me to spell it out), you, shminux, see nothing. In fact, without explaining your reasoning, you go on to state that you find more evidence for ad hominem in my original remarks! I just looked again: I say nothing about anyone’s character (!), so how can there be evidence for me attacking someone by using an ad hominem?
Finally, Luke distorted the quote of the conversation, above. He OMITTED part of the conversation, in which I supplied evidence that there was no dishonesty on my part, and that there was massive evidence that the banning occurred because Yudkowsky needed to stop me when I suggested we get an outside expert opinion to adjudicate the dispute. Faced with this reply, Luke disappeared. He made only ONE comment (the one above) and then he ignored the reply.
He continues to ignore that evidence, and continues to slander my character, making references to “Indeed, given Richard’s reaction (which with a bit more research I might have predicted), I regret having raised the issue with him at all.”
My “reaction” was to supply evidence.
Apparently that is a mark against someone.
One thing to note is that your comment wasn’t removed; it was collapsed. It can still be viewed by anyone who clicks the expander or has their threshold set sufficiently low (with my settings, it’s expanded). There is a tension between the threat of censorship being a problem on the one hand, and the ability for a community to collectively decide what they want to talk about on the other.
The censorship issue is also diluted by the fact that 1) nothing here is binding on anyone (which is way different than your Congress example), and 2) there are plenty of other places people can discuss things, online and off. It is still somewhat relevant, of course, to the question of whether there’s an echo-chamber effect, but carefull not to pull in additional connotations with choice of words and examples.
“Guilt by association” with your past self?