From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 09:13:31 MDT
matus wrote,
> Harvey said:
> > It is true that the exact phrase "war crimes" was not used in
> > the incidents I complained about. Try looking for people
> > being accused of supporting communism
>
> AND
>
> > Wrong. When someone is accused of being supporting communism,
> > terrorism, or the enemy without any evidence,that is slander.
>
> AND
>
> > I disagree. There is no tiny kernel of truth. None of these people
> > have ever given any indication of supporting the enemy.
>
> I find this particular example interesting. Harvey, what if someone
> accuses somebody of one of these and has evidence to support that, even
> a 'tiny kernel', what then?
If there is real evidence, then the attack is not slander. Because the
defense against slander is that the statements are true. But it is still ad
hominem. The debate is aimed at the individual person instead of the topic.
> Further, Harvey, since you have made a good presence at suggesting what
> could be considered to be good conclusion to reasonable draw from others
> comments, I wonder how you interpret Jeff's statements?
I have no interest choosing sides in this political battle at the same time
I am trying to enforce list rules.
> Since this
> revelation on Jeff's part sparked no comments, then perhaps I inferred
> completely incorrectly and every other extropian out there is thinking
> 'That's not what Jeff was saying, idiot!' Or, alternatively, perhaps no
> one founds Jeff's comments startling at all, even though they found my
> interpretation correct (or not). Or, third, perhaps no one saw the
> post, as I am no doubt the member of many kill files.
Or, fourth, the whole point of focusing on Jeff is off-topic and
uninteresting to most readers. Maybe people want to read about perpetual
progress, self-transformation, practical optimism, intelligent technology,
open society, self-direction or rational thinking, and don't care whether
you can prove anything specific about this particular list member or not.
Even if you do prove something? So what? Let's say we hold a star-chamber
online and find Jeff guilty in absentia. You present your evidence and we
all vote 100% unanimously that we find Jeff guilty of harboring supportive
thoughts about Saddam Hussein and/or communism. So what do we do next?
Move the trial into the sentencing phase? What exactly is the end-game to
this process you are pursuing?
> Harvey later noted:
>
> "Do you realize that this is ad hominem? You are no longer discussing
> the merits of the paper. You are discussing the merits of the person
> who wrote it. You are no longer questioning the points he made. You
> are now questioning the person who made those points."
>
> I must say I find this to be a valid point. Focus on the arguments, not
> the arguer.
Thanks. And to be clear, this is my only point. People have repeatedly
argued that a lack of condemnation in specific cases implies biased support.
I must again insist that a lack of statement implies nothing.
> However, in attempting to do this, If I should point out
> that (for example) Jeff's arguments are in support of communism, am I
> not directly implying that he is also, since he is the one making those
> arguments? Thusly, I could be accused of an ad hominem, even though I
> am attacking the argument, and not the arguer.
Not at all. Even in your own question, you attribute the implications
correctly "since he is the one making those arguments". No one should
accuse you of ad hominem if you attack the argument and not the arguer.
That is the definition of avoiding ad hominem.
> Harvey, I would be interested in seeing some examples if you have them
> readily available, especially if you feel I am guilty of any of the
> behavior you mention as I was recently informed that there have been
> complaints about my posts. Though no specifics were provided, I am
> always up for self-improvement.
I cannot imagine that this will do any good, and will only lead us into
further debate over minutia. But since it is only fair, I will send you
some examples off-line. However, please realize that these few examples of
people being accused of having enemy ties are just a very small part of the
larger ad hominem problem which violates list rules. Also note that the
specific examples of the past are not as important as how we are going to
deal with them in the future.
> Ron, Lee, Myself, MaxPlumm, John Clark, and people who profess
> ideologies similar to our group have received such wonderful
> descriptions as those above, and had similar amazing statements such as
> "Foaming tribalist fanatics" "To the extent that patriotism switches on,
> the brain switches off. To the extent that the brain stays on, it's
> because patriotism is being kept on a leash", "Patriotism skews people's
> ability to analyze which side, if any, is in the right." "tired war
> drivel" etc. etc.
Seriously, I can't find any of these examples directed by name against an
individual. I seem to find these occurrences, but they are generic
discussions about topics not people. For example, Eliezer's discussion
about patriotism contains those specific phrases. He did not call any
person any names, mention any specific list members, nor could they seem to
be applied to the person he was debating at the time (Lee Corbin). These
references seem to be part of a rational discussion about the topic without
accusing each other or anybody else. I can only speculate why you assumed
that these descriptions applied to the particular people you mention. I
think you are having difficulty distinguishing between an attack on the
argument and an attack on the person. Eliezer and others do not seem guilty
of the ad hominem, nor do I find any searching for the phrases you
suggested.
> I note that as good as you have been a pointing out dishonest debating I
> don't recall you ever criticizing statements like the ones above
> directed toward people who have a generally different ideology. I also
> never once saw you criticize Humania for making such comments to me as
I am not perfect. I simply don't have time nor the omniscience to catch
every possible case that should receive my comment. I am also not the
current moderator. I do not read every thread to catch every transgression,
nor could I attempt to do so within my eight-posts-per-day limit. Again, a
lack of comment from me does not indicate support of anything.
> "You (plural; the patriots here) twist around the words of your
> opponents"
>
> "you (plural) were fucked up by your humble servants called Bush
> administration"
>
> "could it be that your Pentagon and-White-House-dominated thinking in
> union with adrenalin-aided visualizations of smashing those Middle
> Eastern bastards which amplifies the already existing territorial
> bullshit in your brain"
>
> "vicious circle of astonishingly flexible ancient lizard brain circuits
> that spread the message towards the cortex to merely defend"
>
> "If in June 2003 you are still on the same level as your fellow
> republican US politicians while dealing with ultra conservative monkey
> business like territorial pissings with funnily talking Arabs who
> stubbornly deny wearing blue jeans and display this strange effeminate
> outfit while unexpectedly rejecting the American way of life altogether"
>
> "Meanwhile I am trying to find a new language to communicate my extreme
> disgust at the way some incurable patriots here still stick to His
> Phoniness George "Proud 'n' Pray" W. Bush and his gang of deathists,
> called US government How many more times must you be fucked up by these
> dilapidated religious fundamentalists"
>
> "Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity."
>
> "I will not stop shouting, I am against THIS war. You are deadly wrong
> and you should hear it again every day!"
>
> Do *any* of these statements belong on this list?
I'm not sure you understand what ad hominem is or exactly what the list
rules prohibit. None of these seem to be obvious personal attacks on
specific list members. Many of these are obviously directed at public
figures, whole political parties, or specific points of view. Although the
word "you" is ambiguous and would need to be quoted in context, I don't see
anything here that remotely is comparable to the kind of personal
accusations of specific political activities or associations that I
complained about. Instead of being attacks on individuals, these seem to be
attacks on particular political beliefs, which is not against the rules.
> Hopefully no one found that post offensive
Not at all. You directed your arguments at a topic instead of a person.
-- 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 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 09:24:00 MDT