From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 10:48:05 MDT
Hubert Mania wrote,
> In some extreme cases I guess it is appropriate to attack
> someone personally, so she or he gets a chance to reevaluate
> his/her thoughts. Whenever it comes to the support of killing
> people for any cause whatsoever, except for oself defense I
> think I even have the obligation for a personal attack.
"Obligation for a personal attack"? I have been flooded with these kinds of
messages. So many people on this list believe that resorting to personal
attack is legitimate and necessary for rational conversation. They
literally do not support the list rules against personal attacks and have no
intention of abiding by those rules. This is the root cause of all the
personal attacks on this list. It is not a mistaken slip of the tongue when
emotions get high. Some people deliberately want to engage in personal
attack and believe that this is the ultimately effective form of debate.
> The ad hominem rules might be appropriate most of the time,
> but they loose their effectiveness at the event horizon of
> black hole thinking desasters like the one Mr. Bradbury has
> proved to be capable of. Here the ad hominem protections
> crumble under the gravity of his comment and are transformed
> into a useless collection of academic placebo pills. With
> other words: a load of bullshit.
You can attack bad ideas all you want. How does attacking the person help?
If you cannot logically explain why an idea is wrong, and can only resort to
name-calling, insults and trying to denigrate a person until they give up
and leave, you have no business debating the issue. Such tactics are not
"debate". They are a method to suppress and avoid debate.
> Returning to cases where ad hominem might be appropriate:
> transhumanists supporting a war of aggression. I know in
> advance, that I will get a bloody nose if I, say, kick some
> weapons of ass destruction (no misspelling here!) into a
> crowd of proud patriots that represent the majority of the
> actively posting members of this virtual community. But
> that's okay, I accept it and I can live with the bruises.
> Maybe it has to do with a different kind of ironic and
> sarcastic discussion culture in intellectual German circles
> where no one is surprised if he receives a personal attack
> for his shitty views. Frankly, I am surprised how many
> puritans and preacher's daughters are present on this list
> and who are ready to faint if someone uses more substantial
> and hearty words without making an affected fuss about it.
Might does not make right. Just because you can yell someone down or insult
them until they leave does not mean you have won the debate. This method
serves no useful purpose in planning the future. This is a discussion
forum. All you see on the screen are words and ideas. There is no reason
to become abusive. You should be able to express your counter ideas without
resorting to attacks.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 10:57:50 MDT