Peter wrote:Moderate fairly guys, even if you are strongly invested in one side over the other.
Peter wrote:It is not fair to allow personal attacks from some users
and delete in-kind responses from other users.
It is not fair to allow some users to question the motives of the monks charged with preserving the scriptures
but disallow other users to question the motives of those users who would question those monks.
Moderate fairly guys, even if you are strongly invested in one side over the other.
Ben wrote:Dhamma Wheel is a venue for practitoners to discover and discuss the Theravada. That means, that even in places like the 'lounge' a Theravadin point of view will predominate. Members unfamiliar with the structure of the forums here should review the terms of service and special guidelines for individual fora. Discussions that are acceptable in one forum, maybe completely offtopic in another. The Classical and Abhidhamma sub-fora are for those members who wish to develop a greater understanding of the Abhidhamma and the Tipitaka and the ancient commentaries. In those fora, those sources are considered authoritative for the purposes of discussion. In those fora, personal opinions, personal interpretations based on study or one's faith in the supreme wisdom of a teacher, insights gained from one's own meditative experiences, revelations from contact with devas, are all off-topic. Posts that argue that critique or question the tipitaka, early commentaries and later scholars faithful to the 'classical' point of view are off-topic. I ask that all members respect the boundaries of discussion that is permitted in each fora.
genkaku wrote:Dear Peter -- I agree with you ... and that is not an ad hominem attack.
"Ad hominem" means "to the man" and refers to comments about hairdos, clothing, and other personal adornments. But the term can be conveniently extended by those who feel under attack to include biases, religions, philosophies and the like. Thus, someone may say something idiotic or questionable about Buddhism and a respondent may question the foundation of the argument without being accused of attacking the (wo)man making that argument.
Of course some people are so attached to their philosophies (some Fundamentalist Christians come to mind, but they are not alone) that they interpret any questioning or counter-argument as a personal, slanderous assault on ... dum-da-dum-dum! ... The Truth. This is as unfortunate as it is common: How can you claim to like me if you don't like what I like?
As suggested above, I think it behooves all of us to think twice about what we may say. But equally, I think it behooves all of us to think twice about what we may hear.
Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument.
It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html
Jechbi wrote:My suggestion is, before you post something about another person's faults, ask yourself whether you would be comfortable sending the message by PM to that person instead, out of the public eye. If the message is really worthwhile, that's going to be more effective anyway. Nobody likes their warts pointed out publicly.
Nobody likes their warts pointed out publicly.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.