From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 00:07:38 MDT
gts wrote:
>
> In my example the passerby sees me spit on the sidewalk and then voices an
> objection to my physically expressed opinion in favor of spitting on
> sidewalks. He has an opportunity to object to my opinion about the subject
> with a valid logical argument but he decides instead to object to my views
> with an attack on my character. He looks me in the eye, points his finger at
> me and says "Bum!" He then disappears into the fog never to be seen again.
>
> Some might say that was simple "name-calling" and not ad hominem, but to me
> it looks also like an implied ad hominem argument against my implied
> argument in favor of spitting on sidewalks. Clearly he was disapproving of
> my views about the social propriety of spitting on sidewalks, but he was
> expressing his disapproval by attacking my character rather than by refuting
> my views with a valid logical argument about the subject. That makes it ad
> hominem.
Or he may be taking as already socially established the opinion about the
moral undesirability of spitting on sidewalks, then drawing a conclusion
about your personal character. Or he may be using your spitting on the
sidewalk, a voluntary behavior often viewed as a D play, as an indicator
of your reputation.
Perhaps, of course, you feel that the undesirability of spitting on
sidewalks has not been established to your liking. But it may have been
established to his, and the audience's, liking. After all you did not
publish your argument for the social desirability of spitting on
sidewalks; you actually spit on the sidewalk.
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 00:18:32 MDT