'There’s a cultural expectation that if you publish on inflammatory topics then you’d better be tough enough to cop the ensuing abuse.'

Unfortunately, your own nasty track record of ad hominem attacks on author Melinda Tankard Reist on another online forum - together with your equally nasty attacks on those who dared to agree with her - are a very good example of this 'cultural expectation'.

What a pity you don't practise what you preach.

Do they still allow blondes to get PhDs?

I'd never heard of ad hominem or strawman arguments until I started blogging here but I know what the writer means.

Yet I don't take any attacks personally and I have copped a few broadsides. Some deserved, some just rants. I've never thought that another person has 'won' an argument because I or another party has stopped blogging.

I was concerned last week when a young woman posted an article on methane which attracted some fairly heavy abuse. It was an opinion genuinely held - which I thought was ridiculous but she should have been spared the less salubrious remarks which in the end were deleted.

Some posters provide very good criticism such as Pericles, Curmodgeon, rpg, etc. Others use anonimity to vent their spleen. I suppose that's human nature.

I think that this is a useful article to provoke an important discussion about behaviour on blogsites.

I note, in passing, that the range of serial ad hominers that frequent the climate change articles haven't deigned to comment yet- c'mon! We're waiting for you!

I can't help but think that ad hominers are free-riders on our cultural tollway. By free-rider, I mean someone who believes that the system will flourish despite their cheating on whatever it costs to participate. Biologists call this behaviour parasitism. In this case, culture is a tollway, because it requires everyone to pay- ie make the effort to follow the norms of the culture. Robust and dynamic cultures can allow for variance from the norms, but not to the extent of subversion.

Ad hominers seem to believe that it is up to others to pay- in the case of blogging, they expect others to provide a basic framework of reasoned discourse- along which they can hoon and drive recklessly- shouting insults at people trying to follow the code of the road (ie civility).

To extend the metaphor- imagine if we had no roads- hoons would have to stay home and jeer at free-to-air reality shows.

Some States now have dob-in-a-hoon hotlines. We have a similar system on OLO and most blogsites have a similar facility- in OLO it's the little red cross at the bottom left of the posting. But like the dob-in-a-hoon hotlines, this facility is only as good as the extent to which it is both used and policed. In OLO's case, I think that it is not policed sufficiently.

How many free-riders/parasites cana system endure before it collapses?

Jedimaster,

Actually, I enjoy a good ad hominem - it's a sure sign that the 'ad hominer' has no argument left, so I feel that I've already won on points. Sometimes they are quite imaginative and original, if a bit psychotic. My favourites usually contain strong elements of paranoia and conspiracy theory, right off the discussion.

Keep them coming !

Joe

Whoa! Killarney!

You won't find any ad hominem arguments I've made against MTR. You'll find plenty of spirited and robust disagreement with her position.

But you will find a stack of ad hominem abuse by her followers directed at me, and all the others on that forum who disagreed with them. I won't repeat it here but it was pretty disgusting.

I have so many millions of arguments against MTR's positions that I don't need to attack her personally.

Neither do I want to - the arguments are so much more interesting.

"Argumentum ad hominem -Attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument."

The very first thing I thought when I read this article was that I admit to feeling guilty of this charge at times on this site :(

I am not sure if it applies so much to people who regularly contribute to a site such as this one, and therefore, sort of, get to know the writing styles and views of other contributers?

If one feels they 'know' the real meanings behind some comments by others who they have conversed with before, are the 'personal' attacks on the writer as bad as those who do so on blogs or about articles by writers they have no previous experience of?

I must admit I find it amusing on this site to read other remarks about some contributers or writers of articles that could appear to be personal 'attacks'.

Does that make me a bad person?

If a writer doesn't want to put themselves out there at the mercy of all sorts of people in cyber-land, then I would humbly suggest they don't write publicly.

suzeonline, a writer puts him or herself at the mercy of anybody whenever they publish anything.

Fortunately for the reading public, there are plenty of writers still willing to put up with it.

If every writer who had been personally abused took your advice, you would have nothing left to read.

What is your objection to the reader/commenter taking responsibility for what they say and how they say it?

What is your objection to a civilized space where nobody personally abuses anybody?

Would you prefer writers stop writing because they're fed up copping abuse, or is it better that readers refrain from abuse in the first place?

Why do you think that because I publish my writing, I must accept being personally abused?

Is this a requirement for the practice of any other profession?

No, that is not really what I meant Briar Rose.

I guess what I was really trying to say is that one person's feelings of being 'personally abused' may not necessarily be another person's feelings.

If someone writes a controversial article, say for instance, one on domestic violence from a womans point of view, then they would expect to cop a certain amount of flack.

I don't believe in personal attacks on the writer's looks, or on their dress sense etc, as that should not impact on the subject of their writing.
If however, a writer puts themselves out there as a radical feminist, or let's everyone know their sexual preferences, or their religion, or their ethnicity or any other usually private information about their life, then they should expect some comments on that.

From my experience, writers usually give as good as they get, and express themselves so much better than most when they do :)
It is only human nature after all.

So no, I do not condone extremely personal attacks on anyone.

Suze,

Comments about " .... any other usually private information about their life .... " by definition have nothing to do with discussions, so really should be out of bounds for criticism. To attack someone on those grounds would be ad hominem, I would have thought, unless the person whose characteristics were being criticised had been trying to make a point using that sort of information.

Of course, the right of free speech must include speech or writing which is abusive, offensive and obnoxious. Otherwise, what could constitute free speech ? Only stuff which offends no-one ?

But that's another story.

Joe

I don't agree with deliberately setting out to upset people: but I think a lot of what you seem to regard as ad hominem attacks are simply ways of testing how well prepared -- intellectually and emotionally -- someone is to defend the ideas they are putting forward. When someone like Peter Sellick, for instance, posts vacuous nonsense on OLO over and over again, it's surely reasonable to try and provoke him into giving his ideas some real thought and either making a genuine logical defence or -- better still -- abandoning them altogether.

This is the way the world makes progress: by abandoning ideas which have been shown to be stupid and embracing other, better ones. If we give up on that goal then any discussion -- including this one -- will become trivial and academic in the worst sense.

For the record, over the last few years I have seen major changes for the better in the content and style of articles put forward on religion and climate change -- the subjects I am most interested in -- and I attribute this at least in part to the readiness of dissenters to vigorously engage not only the arguments but the proponents' vested interests in putting them forward. If that means ad hominem attacks, then so be it.

briar rose

'You won't find any ad hominem arguments I've made against MTR. You'll find plenty of spirited and robust disagreement with her position.'

Oh ... silly me. I didn't realise that you were just spiritedly and robustly disagreeing with MTR's Christianity, sexual and psychological health, professionalism, writing ability and personal honesty.

And you were just spiritedly and robustly reducing those who agreed with her position as having a 'megalomaniacal compulsion to foist their subjective judgements onto everyone else' and an 'uncontrolled hatred and denigration of men'.

Unfortunately, the most spirited and robust of ad hominems come from those who perceive an ad hominem attack in the arguments of those who disagree with them, but are unable to see it in themselves

Briar Rose,

Can you honestly say that you never employ ad hominems? Flipping through a few of your last posts I see a few personal attacks.

Also to quote "I have yet to meet an unscholarly person who wrote an internationally acclaimed doctoral thesis." You are setting yourself up and making yourself part of the argument.

There is an old adage, It takes two to Tango.

Stuart Franks from Newcastle Uni occasionally raises serious issues with climate change, so naturally is the subject of much ad hominem abuse. He says that he is often called a contrarian, and points out that it's very difficult to defend - you can't just say "No I'm not."

There is another version: "I'm a scientist..." with the implication that you're not.

Bastards!

Killarney, you have obviously assumed someone on that forum (where everybody used pseudonyms) is me.

I think you need to stop making these accusations, which you've been doing for some time now, they are unfounded and I seriously object to them.

For the record, anybody can disagree with MTR's or anyone's religious faith, or anyone's perceptions of sexuality. Disagreement is not automatically ad hominem argument.

As for her psychological health I have not now or ever had an opinion on that, but I recall that someone did make reference to it on the forum, it just wasn't me.

Democritus, I'm sure I've been guilty of using an ad hominem argument in articles, probably about politicians. But I know I don't usually because those arguments don't work if you're trying to make a point.

I'm actually talking about personal abuse, like the examples I gave in the article today.

The quote you use is a response I made to a commenter who said I was "unscholarly". I'm not sure how that is ad hominem argument from me, I was talking about myself, and I wasn't abusing me.

Jon J : I think it's important for authors to reveal their affiliations, and for readers to point them out in context if they are seen to be influencing the argument. But that doesn't have to be done abusively, and then it isn't an ad hominem attack.

Pointing out vested interests isn't using ad hominen argument. Its important they be known.

Someone was deleted the other day for using an author's religious affiliation as a method of abuse. If they'd just identified it as important in the context of the argument, they probably would have been all right.

I admit it's sometimes a fine line. For example, by coincidence David Williamson is very upset on the Drum today because (among other things) someone called his writing "fat and lazy." They didn't call him "fat and lazy" so I don't think I'd see that as ad hominem argument. It's an interesting observation about his writing, and the writing is fair game, the writer isn't

While I agree that gratuitous flaming and abuse are unwarranted and tiresome, it should be noted that ad-hominem is not *always* a fallacy: for instance, were Charlie Sheen to espouse the virtues of chastity, sobriety and Christian values, one would be well entitled to point highlight his personal qualities.

Plus there's always a place for a good spot of wit, insults and good old head-kicking in any 'spirited debate'.

Briar Rose, interesting piece.

I don't much enjoy the ad hominem stuff but there is a place where a suitable witty comment (not repeated too often) can be great but then perhaps it's only really great when directed at someone who's views don't seem worth serious rebuttal. The danger at the fringes is that it's very much in the eye of the beholder what's a relevant point or witty retort and what's ad hominem.

On the other hand there is plenty of material which is clearly abuse which tells much about those who write it and little about their targets.

R0bert

Thanks for this piece Jennifer. You could probably add Indigenous affairs to your list of article topics that reliably spark argumentum ad hominem.

I think the old-fashioned advice to treat others as you'd like to be treated is as valuable as ever.

I'm intrigued that so many people agree there's a legitimate need for the aggressive, often abusive, denouncement of someone else's views - whether that denouncement involves personal attack or not. Isn't it possible to show people some simple respect by listening to (or reading) their views, then asking questions to clarify their position to ensure you understand it fully, before offering your own alternative point of view - without needing to employ aggressive language or self-righteous opinions about who's right or wrong?

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned or naive (or both), but I don't see why aggression, abuse or general intolerance need have anything to do with the sharing of differing opinions. In my experience aggression does little to broaden understanding or deepen knowledge of an issue. More often it acts to polarise people into extreme positions, encouraging them to close their minds and rigidly hold to a pre-determined position. A result that is quite the opposite, surely, of what we opinion-sharers are aiming to achieve.

M Fahy,
One could hardly have put it better. What a pity that not everybody here seems to agree with these elementary rules of civilised behaviour and politeness in our discussions (especially where world-views are involved), whether or not one calls them "old-fashioned or naive (or both)".

Jennifer, thanks for a highly pertinent article. It's a sad reflection on our society, however, that your piece is pertinent at all.

There are people in the OLO forum who talk about "spirited" and "robust" debate legitimising aggressive name-calling or ridicule of a person. This is the way of the unthinking and undemocratic. The "spirited and robust" language should be focussed on the content expressed in the writing, not on the author.

These people who defend the ad hominem comments are this forum's equivalent to the sort who watch football matches, not to see admirable skill in playing the game, but rather in the hope of seeing one player knock another unconscious.

But Jennifer, regarding the mention of ad hominem comments about politicians, I must say that this widespread tendency in Australian culture is a major reason why so few citizens are inclined to be actively involved in politics. It seems we elect members of parliament in order to have a constant supply of Aunt Sallies to through stones at, rather than to represent and lead us. Is it any wonder political parties are now so out-of-touch with the wider society on whose behalf they aim to work?

Dear George,

Delighted that you are with us and are a voice for civility.

briar rose

'Killarney, you have obviously assumed someone on that forum (where everybody used pseudonyms) is me.'

Yes, because the paper trail is overwhelmingly obvious - especially your previous OLO article, 'Flesh-eating coffins ...' written in the first person and quoting words from this particular 'someone on that forum' as your own.

'I think you need to stop making these accusations, which you've been doing for some time now, they are unfounded and I seriously object to them.'

I'm sure you seriously object to them but they are not unfounded, as they directly relate to this particular topic under discussion. If you wish to appoint yourself as an arbiter on the use of ad hominems in online discussions, then it would help if your own track record were not littered with so many of them.

After all, ad hominems are not just about saying someone is stupid. They come in many forms: reading into other people's comments an offensive meaning or prejudice that is not there, assuming another person is attacking you when all they are doing is disagreeing, excessive lecturing or labouring a point, telling people they are being emotional or controlling etc etc.

You appear to be behaving yourself slightly better in this commentary section, although you slipped back into your old provocative habits by asking suzonline above: 'What is your objection to a civilized space where nobody personally abuses anybody?'

Asking someone a question that presupposes they object to civil and non-abusive discussion is a hell of an insult to that person. In other words, it's one of those ad hominems you are so quick to condemn in others but fail to see in yourself.

Killarney, you need to acquaint yourself with the ad hominem fallacy - it is quite complex, there are many aspects of it, and there are many exclusions from the fallacy on many contextual grounds. I was referring specifically to the use of personal abuse as demonstrated in my examples.

As for the forum - you are jumping to conclusions - there were several of us (friends) who commented on the MTR article, and with permission, I consolidate various remarks into my piece on flesh eating coffins.

I'm quite astonished that you should spend so much time and effort trying to discredit me - I had no idea anything I said was so significant.

What a champion you are of others! MTR, suzeonline - I'm sure these adult women are capable of addressing me directly if I have offended them.

Thank you for your feedback, and your interest in my writing.

briar rose

I'm confused. How do I know that you are the real briar rose and not one of your 'friends' using her pseudonym?

'Thank you for your feedback, and your interest in my writing.'

I'm much more interested in your hypocrisy than your writing. The former is quite spectacular, while the latter is not.

And BTW, I dare not ask what on earth an 'ad hominem fallacy' is! I assume this must refer to the ad hominems that you do to others, while 'authentic' ad hominems are the ones that others do to you.

But hey, briar-rose-of-the-place-for-amazonian-sheep, I'll stop being so mean to you. Ad hominising gets rather tedious after a while.

Jennifer,

An ideal discussion should be a clear debate on the merits of issues.

In a thread, there is a reasonable expectation that the author of the article will have some background on what she/he is writing. If the author's credentials included a Phd and various papers, then a reader / poster would expect an in depth detailed knowledge of the issues presented, especially if presented as facts.

As raised earlier, when an author presents credentials with a supposedly overwhelming expertise in the area, the authority of the qualifications become inextricably entangled with the words and the persona of the author can no longer be entirely separated.

Finally, when the author rushes in to vigorously defend the article, but cannot provide anything other than personal opinion to do so, the gravitas of the qualifications begins to evaporate.

Killarney is here

To settle scores, thus nicely

Proving briar's point

Shintaro,

I must say I'm impressed by the way you are using haiku as a discipline for your posting!

It might not work for every post in these threads, but you are illustrating what we could all do to find the essential point of our message and word it as succinctly as possible.

Well done, Samurai!

Thank you Shadow Minister, you make some good points.

It is rather unreasonable, however, to expect an author to respond in depth to wide variety of comments in 350 words, only four times in a 24 hour period.

I would be very happy to go into a great deal more detail in my replies to questions, as I learned to do as a PhD candidate and university lecturer, however the format of forums and comments spaces doesn't lend itself to much, if any, in depth analysis. At least not as I understand the term.

As I recall in the tussle to which you are referring, I refused to engage with you until you provided something other than your personal opinions and personally arrived at statistics with which to argue against me.

Apart from one reference to a government department, all of your posts were entirely bereft of sources other than yourself, and as I pointed out at the time, you are anonymous.

The article I wrote, which was very specific, was not the topic you wanted to argue with me about - as I also pointed out several times. From this I've learned to refuse to engage with anything off -topic. Thank you for that.

Killarney you seem to be working yourself up into a froth.

Please don't stop being mean on my account, if being mean is what you enjoy.

But if you are going to accuse me or anyone else of hypocrisy in this matter, you really need to inform yourself about the ad hominem fallacy, otherwise you will sound silly.

BTW I have just checked the flesh eating coffins thing and I find no ad hominen arguments by myself or my friends in it.

As you will agree when you discover just what the criteria for an ad hominen argument are

Jennifer,

I was hoping not to try and rehash the discussion, but firstly the debate was on several of the issues raised in the article and as such I would not have considered them off topic. Your answers were in most cases not in depth or even direct answers, but a stated disagreement followed by a restatement of your position. (A Kevin Rudd typical tactic)

In none of your rebuttals did you attempt to support or reference your opinions at all. My link to the government website was to provide proof that the figures I had provided (that showed clearly that Abbott with a return to the pacific solution, was perfectly capable of stopping the boats) were legitimate and not made up.

Secondly after showing (with reference to the UNHCR charter) that the pacific solution complied, you claimed not to be legally literate, and that while the pacific solution might comply to the letter of the law, it did not comply with the spirit.

Finally, as far as the propaganda was concerned, I showed a dictionary definition of the term "illegal immigrant" as someone who has entered the country illegally, which makes no judgement as to the legality of their entrance to the country. Likewise if I used the term "blow job" the act that springs to mind seldom includes actual blowing or employment.

Thank you for your feedback, Shadow Minister.

Jennifer Wilson,

If only you were a bit modest and talked with your readers rather than at them, your posts would meet with an audience ready to evaluate your pronouncements seriously, irrespective of agreement or otherwise.

So far the expression of your opinions has induced a self-protective reaction in me and once I urged you to wake up to today’s realities.

As you resorted to ancient Latin in ‘Argumentum ad hominen’, I dare suggest you read Wittgenstein’s ‘Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus’ and save a lot of ink.

Anamele,

Thank you for such an encapsulative post. Anamele posted, on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 at 5:06:54 PM:

"Stuart Franks from Newcastle Uni occasionally
raises serious issues with climate change, so
naturally is the subject of much ad hominem abuse.
He says that he is often called a contrarian, and
points out that it's very difficult to defend -
you can't just say "No I'm not.""

ROFL.

It is indeed a terrible conundrum within which to be ensnared: the mere act of embracing one's fate by saying 'yes' bringing upon oneself such instant and automatic discreditation! A veritable 'auto de yea', a seemingly inevitable culmination of appearance before the OLO Inquisition, in such circumstances.

Then again, with the very term 'contrarian' being coined as a derogatory label to be applied to any who should dare challenge some academic orthodoxy of uncertain parentage, perhaps that is only to be expected.




Reducing the degree of tangentiality of my approach to the subject of the article, argumentum ad hominem, may I suggest a partial remedy may reside in a more rigorous enforcement of the Forum requirement that posts, particularly those to the comment threads to articles, either be on topic or otherwise face more certain deletion might be effective in reducing such abuse of which the author complains? 'On topic' meaning addressing at least some content of the article in question, as distinct from the making of bald assertions, or the making of attempts at the labeling of authors or other posters.

I draw to viewers' attention the comments thread to the current article 'How politics contributed to the January 2011 Brisbane floods'. Of the 17 posts to that thread, ten (posts 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16) are, IMO, completely off-topic. I make this observation because, despite the relative extent of this effective disrespect paid to the article and/or its author, the article was over the same period topping the 'most popular' displays on the Forum main page.

Too much noise-to-signal may have discouraged posting, in my opinion.

Skeptic, I'm sorry you feel my opinions cause you to feel self -protective. I can't do anything much about that, though. I don't know you, and I certainly don't write opinions to upset you.

As for expressing the opinions more *modestly* -unfortunately people who are far better at these things than I will ever be have used many different ways of expressing opinions on the topics I concern myself with. The reactions from those who disagree are invariably the same, no matter in what terms the opinions are couched.

Many of those writers and advocates now refuse to engage in discussion with opponents, feeling that it is a waste of energy that could be better spent continuing to write, and campaign, and agitate for change.

Perhaps this is the best thing to do with topics that so polarise people. Perhaps attempting discussion is futile, and even inciting. I'm beginning to think that is the case.

And as my writing style is naturally more assertive than retiring, I think for me to attempt modesty would result in the kind of falsification I couldn't actually pull off, and would quickly get tired and ashamed of.

Thank you for the reading recommendation. I appreciate your comments.

*or you haven’t got a solution to the issues you raised so what did you raise them for?*

In a recent debate, I proposed a solution, to a very critical online
opinion author and asked for the same. For of course being a critic
is simple. Proposing a workable solution, is a bit more of a
mental challenge. Workable results matter in the end.

I was fobbed off. A solution?

It reminded me of the time, when at our local hospital, there was
no doctor in town, so the hospital had no patients for a while.

I mentioned it to the administrative staff, and they responded
with "Patients? Why would we want patients? We have more then enough
to do in this office, without patients! "

Yabby, "I mentioned it to the administrative staff, and they responded
with "Patients? Why would we want patients? We have more then enough
to do in this office, without patients!"

Yes, Minister, the empty hospital,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyf97LAjjcY

Many thanks crabsy

Succinctness is a virtue

To which I aspire

Dear Jennifer,
Thanks for raising this issue of the ad hominem 'argument'. I agree that there are certain topics guaranteed to evoke an ad hominem response.

Among your list you didn't mention the creation/evolution discussions. Some of these have been among the longest here on OLO. It has sometimes stimulated sensible discussion, but not in healthy proportion to the hate mail. Try raising this and see how quickly it brings out the ad hominem among certain of our treasured friends.

Ad hominem comes in various forms; some retorts can be amusing. There's one turkey here who insists that my university degrees should be revoked because of our differing opinions. That's potentially funny, but sad once you realise that he's serious.

Ultimately, there is some consolation in knowing that those who use ad hominem against you demonstrate that they are losing the real debate.

You can respond in various ways: ignore, engage, or point out their ad hominem. One here whom I know gets more than his share is Peter Selleck. Now, I don’t always agree with him (I rarely understand him), but he is willing to engage, if only selectively, and only with those who truly attempt to deal with the issue at hand.

Sometimes debaters consciously play the man and not the ball for reasons they think are justified. Prime Minister Keating was famous for his ad hominem. It made parliament colourful, but also lowered the tone. He argued that at least here in Australia we fight with words and not guns or bombs.

I don’t think the ad hominem is going to disappear any time soon. The moderator on OLO only takes away the most blatant, as they want debate to be robust. We must have thick skins to engage in public debate.

And Jennifer, I see that you yourself are not immune to using it. In your recent article responding to Bill Muehlenberg's piece on gay marriage, you were quite content to call him DELUSIONAL. Bill Muehlenberg might be many things but I don't see how calling him that is anything more than ad hominem.

Thanks for that, Dan. Here is what I wrote:

*The truth is,” the author instructs us, because he clearly believes he is someone who knows a) what the truth is, and b) what most of us think the truth is, “homosexuals do not at all have in mind what most of us understand marriage to be”. I have to take Muehlenberg up on this, because I was taught from an early age to always question terms such as “most of us”. To someone from my background (and there are many of us), the use of the term “most of us” to support an argument implies an unsubstantiated but hegemonic perspective that may well be highly inaccurate, if not delusional, and we must treat it with caution.*

I stand by that use of delusional. Many people are treated as psychiatrically disabled if they claim the kind of knowledge Bill claims to have, obtained from exclusively supernatural sources, as does Bill.

Because Bill's Christianity is normalised doesn't make it rational or sane. It's just a normalised delusion.

Delusion: *false belief or opinion that cannot be modified by reasoning or demonstration of facts. When persistent is characteristic of psychosis.*

Which, come to think of it, also describes Bill's beliefs about homosexuality.
Cheers, Jennifer.

Briar Rose,
In standing by your accusation that Muehlenberg is DELUSIONAL, it appears as if you are (something like Paul Keating) trying to justify your AD HOMINEM.

In one sense I'm with you. I'd stand by my description of 'TURKEY' towards that guy who argued that my university degrees should be revoked because my opinions are out of step with his. He deserved the ad hominem.

Muehlenberg justified what he said by reference to what was written by homosexual writers and advocates. He did not make any reference to any supernatural beliefs in that article.

It appears that the problem that you have with Muehlenberg, and the reason you call him delusional, is that he holds to Christian faith, and thus subscribes to supernatural beliefs. I don't see why this justifies the use of the ad hominem, unless you are saying that all Christians are delusional (which perhaps you are).

You say his Christian faith is delusional because it cannot be modified by reason or facts. Which FACTS are you talking about? I believe I know of certain facts which should dissuade you from your atheism.

I think Muehlenberg's statement was fair comment. Most of us do believe that the concept of marriage ideally implies marital faithfulness and the safe environment for the procreation and raising of children.

Most people in the world do believe in a supernatural supreme being, codified or expressed in religious beliefs that most of society understands as falling within the bounds of normality. And if you want to disagree, then that's fine.

And if you want to argue that it's good for our society to change our marriage laws so as to promote the idea that gay and lesbian couplings reflect some kind of healthy normality, then I think you are delusional.

Michael Viljoen     

It's true that Bill didn't make reference to his faith in this article. However, as his belief is well known, I felt it was safe to assume that Bill's truth claims about heterosexual marriage and gay people have their origins in his faith.

If they don't, then I'm surprised he didn't explain where his truth claims come from.

I see you again bring in the ubiquitous *most of us.* Most of the people I know don't hold religious beliefs - that's my *most of us,* but I don't feel I have to extrapolate my *most of us* into a universal.

The *bounds of normality* are not set in stone. They are fluid. Once slavery was *normal.* Once removing indigenous children from their parents was *normal.* Once Christians murdered and tortured non Christians and that was considered *normal.*

Personally, I don't care what people believe or don't believe. The problem for me is when they are driven to force others to abide by their systems. If you don't want to marry another man, nobody will force you to do that. So why if you do want to marry a man, should somebody force you not to?

Better not pursue this, its off topic - the thread is about ad hominem arguments. Write an article about it, and then I'll respond in the forum.
Cheers, Jennifer.

"Force others to abide by our systems?" 
Nobody is forcing or withholding marriage upon anyone. It is gay advocates themselves who are wanting to have the marriage laws changed to suit their wishes.

Now Jennifer, when I say that you are delusional over your beliefs about gay marriage, or when you say that Bill is delusional over his beliefs about gay marriage, which if either of these arguments is valid and which is ad hominem?

Yours, mine, or neither?  

I think as we are both expressing our opinions, an independent arbiter would have to decide which, if either, was "right." I don't really think it's a matter of right and wrong.

I'm not actually claiming any belief system to support my opinion that gay marriage should be available to those who want it, as is Bill. I think that's what makes his argument delusional.

I just think its a decent thing to make marriage available to people who love each other. I can't see any reason to deny it to people on gender grounds. That's my own thinking, not coming from any supernatural source, just making up my mind from observing people I know.

This argument is also feeling a bit weird as I have just put up a post on my blog, http://www.noplaceforsheep.com
defending Bill Muehlenberg's right to his opinion, as the ANZ Bank and IBM have withdrawn their advertising from OLO because Grahame published it.
Go figure.

Just by way of amplification as to what it was to which Briar Rose was alluding when she said: "as the ANZ Bank and IBM have withdrawn their advertising from OLO because Graham published [Bill Muehlenberg's article]", I post this link to an item by Christopher Pearson published in today's Australian online: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/oversensitivity-can-only-compromise-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1226000416817

I was alerted to this situation by a tweet by Susan Prior, until recently the articles editor on OLO, in which she posted a link to the item in The Australian. This was her tweet: http://twitter.com/Susan_Prior/status/33641623086694400




Perhaps the key observation of Christopher Pearson's item was:

"Young suspects that the peg on which to hang the
internal decision to withdraw advertising within
both organisations was a code developed by IASH,
the Internet Advertising Sales Houses, WHICH HE
DECLINED TO SIGN.

The code is a triumph of political correctness gone
mad, and badly needs rewriting. Schedule C provides
that IASH Australia members "are forbidden to place
advertising on sites containing barred content - in
other words, any of the inventory defined below - in
any circumstances. Content articulating views intended
or reasonably likely to cause or incite hatred of any
race, religion, creed, class or ethnic group. Content
articulating views calculated to cause offence to or
incite hatred of ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP."

The last sentence is the loopiest in the schedule. It
forbids anything that might offend anyone. This would
neuter not just contentious articles but the free flow
of comment on them that gives blogs their character."




A common denominator, IMO, where ad hominem arguments are resorted to, is a seeming determination to 'be offended' on the part of those using the ad hominem tactic. It thus seems that the IASH is attempting to batten-on to the corporate advertising budget much as a 'standover man' in support of 'the offended'. Full marks to Graham Young for refusing to pay 'protection money' to this association of parasites, this utter trIASH, this adhomination!

Thanks Jennifer and Forest for those links.

As someone who supports removal of unnecessary barriers to equality it is disturbing to see more evidence of such foul behind the scenes behavior by activists supposedly working for a better society.

Contrary opinions should be able to be expressed (and debated), those who seek to force those views underground are no friends of freedom and I suspect that the tye type of activity highlighted here works against acceptance of homosexual rights more than it helps it.

R0bert

Yeah, good one Dan,

Trustworthy and untrustworthy people are given differing status in our economic, social, and legal institutions. Untrustworthy people routinely seek to enjoy the role of trustworthy and only a fool would say "oh that's just ad hominem" and entrust important roles to such.

Remember, Dan's hurt tone is entirely due to being caught out, over and over, but he would love your rationality to be so porous as to let his "alternatives" in unexamined.

Do please, Dan, at any time, give your reference supporting an archaic usage of "expodential". Since I think you work in bible-translation, how about the linguistic roots as well? Do the odds of rolling a "six" on a die at least once approach unity in a large number of rolls?

Oh and did you accept correction on these? or did you filibuster along, hoping to cloud the issue?

If demonstrated untrustworthiness is "ad hominem" and therefore not relevant in a discussion, what is?

Rusty

This thread has been most fascinating, as it goes to the heart of OLO's raison d'etre- ie, the nature and relevance of "opinion".

While Wiktionary defines opinion as "A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue", examples suggest that those thoughts can range from unfounded expressions of feelings to inferences based on extensive research. That OLO generously invites opinions of all kinds seems to be an invitation to some to sound-off on the former kind and deride those who strive for the latter.

As Socrates and Galileo found, respect for the empirical doesn't mean that the inferences will be pleasant to all ears. Ross Garnaut eloquently put it this week in his "Climate Change Review Update" (page 10):

"The Review noted that it is neither rational nor helpful for someone to reject a recommendation because he or she does not like it. Sound public discussion and, in the end, sound policy require a critic of a conclusion to identify a premise, a set of information or an element of methodology that is erroneous."

Although Garnaut has probably suffered more slings and arrows (aka ad hominems) in the past two years than most people would receive in a lifetime, he still has the grace to say:

"[The Report] acknowledged that the majority opinion remains contested by a small number of dissenters with relevant science credentials and by many without those credentials."

It's a pity that more OLO-ers don't follow Garnaut's example of grace under fire to provide something publicly useful rather than using OLO as a medium to vent their spleens.

Rusty,
For all your petty grievances, go back to those threads in which you raised them and discuss them there (where they might at least have some context).

One might have thought that on a thread discussing AD HOMINEM arguments that you might try to address the author's question and not again make me your preferred target. Alas, no.

Guess what, Rusty? I am not the issue (and I never have been).

Dear Jennifer,
Thanks for making your stand on freedom of speech. 

The soundness of our argument and manner in which we debate are important but become meaningless when we're given no voice or freedom to express our thoughts openly.

I hope that those in positions of responsibility at the ANZ Bank and IBM might wake up and realise how their decisions may effect our most basic of freedoms.

It seems to me that quite often the protestations that we see of "argumentum ad hominem" are little more than a convenient "receptum ignavorum".

While the concept that one should go for the ball, not the man, is well understood and accepted, not every tackle is necessarily a foul.

When assessing an offering that contains assertions of fact, the first port of call would be "is it accurate?" This is relatively easy to determine, given the wealth of reference material at our disposal. For example, should a contributor claim that their ancestors are entombed in a small, derelict Scottish cathedral, it is the easiest thing in the world to check.

Opinions, of course, do not conform to this simplistic approach. They may be sincerely held, or they may be purely confrontational for the sake of confrontation. And to attack an individual who presents a poorly argued position by simply saying "hey, you're stupid" doesn't illuminate, but is simply an invitation to trade insults.

On the other hand, I believe that it is perfectly legitimate, if the poster offering a dumb opinion has a history of dissembling, distortion and invention, to be allowed to offer this information. In the same way that checking available resources is legitimate when dealing with facts, gaining an insight into the character of a contributor through others' observations of their integrity should not be condemned out of hand.

But it is noticeable that every time this does happen, a little squeal goes up, "ad hominem, ad hominem", as if the offering of valid background information is somehow sinful per se.

The forces of blind censorship appear to be gathering around us, ready to punish any opinion that isn't, in someone's view, "quite the thing". It would be sad if any observations of a personal nature were to go the same way.

How boring would that be?

R0bert (and others)

‘...it is disturbing to see more evidence of such foul behind the scenes behavior by activists supposedly working for a better society.’

How can you be sure that this is the case?

One person’s ‘silencing dissent’ is another person’s ‘taking a stand’. You and others here might like to take a look at how two of the other online forums affected by this issue have responded to it.

Larvatus Prodeo: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/02/05/saturday-salon-35/#comments
En Passant: http://enpassant.com.au/?p=9276

In a nutshell, LP host Mark Bahnisch plus about 99% of LP commentariat either approve of, or are not at all concerned by, the stand taken by the ANZ and IBM. And to quote John Passant at En Passant:

‘This is not about free speech. It is about gays and lesbians withdrawing their dollars and the opportunity to make dollars form someone who has published the views of the oppressor.’

On that note, I should state my bias: I invest with Ethical Investments, and I am very grateful that they took the stand they did. Otherwise, what was the point of my investing with them?

Also, the advertising industry is not into either ethics or free speech. Its profits depend to a large extent on going with prevailing opinion. At present, all the polls point to the fact that the Australian majority favours gay marriage and supports the climate change premise. So one could say that this issue is much more about the free market than censorship.

Briar Rose,
You want to make marriage available to those who love each other. What if a man loves two sisters (or two brothers), can he marry them both?
 
In labelling our adversaries delusional, we are indeed expressing an opinion. The question is whether this opinion is valid in the circumsances or unnecessary ad hominem.     

We all hold belief systems; some are more explicit, others implicit. Now even though you admit Bill didn't refer to his faith based beliefs in his article, you justify your claim that he is delusional because of his belief system. 

That is, because Bill believes in the supernatural he is delusional.

I, of course, find this unjustified (and you haven't really tried to justify it). To call someone delusional because he holds a different belief system to yours is arguing ad hominem.

Yet I feel you're entering waters even more murky. For by attacking Bill's particular belief system, you are claiming that all Christians, in fact all who believe in a personal deity, are delusional.

Now we're entering the domain of vilification. Calling a section of society delusional is not really valid comment. What would it mean if I said all buddhists, or all liberal voters, or all gays, or all Collingwood supporters, or all vegetarians, or all curly haired people were delusional? (I'm some of these but not all.) 

At best it would mean my argument must be weak for I make unnecessary recall to ad hominem. At worst I could end up fronting the equal opportunity commissioner.  

Ummm, Dan, just look up delusional.

I have yet to see anybody prove the existence of any deity in a manner that uses facts rather than faith. Yet the beliefs persist, and are used as a justification for truth claims about hetereosexuality and gay people.

So my opinion is that I am entitled to use the term delusional about this attitude, and I'm not using ad hominem arguments and I'm not vilifying anybody. If you or anyone else read the comment as such, then it is up to you to prove that and disprove my claims by proving that faith is based in facts and rationality.

Killarney, of course this is about the market. Banks do not take *ethical* stands unless they are profitable. Of course the ANZ took this stand because society, and their customers, are apparently pro gay marriage.

However, that stand inevitably results in censorship. Is every opposing view on everything society currently favours to be silenced by powerful corporate interests to further their own agendas?

For example, do we want Fox News to be our only source of information and opinion?

Most of the commenters on MTR's opinions totally disagree with her. Many feel she and her followers take a hateful attitude towards men. What I've read certainly supports that view and the vilifying comments about men in the flesh eating coffins thing surpasses anything Muehlenberg said about gay marriage and homosexuality.

By your argument, she should therefore be silenced.

Even I wouldn't say that.

This is absolutely about free speech, and John Passant is wrong. In my humble opinion.

Dan,

Yes indeed, those minor issues should have been addressed on those threads, and were. Please, feel free to answer on those threads yourself.

Since you brought up that poor "turkey", it seemed appropriate to refer to an actual example of what you call ad hominem attack, showing that those who complain of it (like you) are usually so full of the usual that the "attack" is simply reasonable filtering of BS.

To give a reasonable example justifying what you would complain was ad hominem: If an individual were to lie about the provenance of a word, having had that word questioned, I would feel justified in regarding that person as untrustworthy, his casual pronouncements subject to suspicion.

Untrustworthiness in small things reflects poorly on character and is regarded as indicative of likely veracity in large ones.

Religious beliefs are a poor basis for determining public policy. One bhagwan and a few sycophants have more "votes" in a "democracy" than a single well informed individual. This does not make the cult "right", just an obstacle.

It is reasonable and likely that a religious adherent will not be espousing their well-considered independent view but simply reiterating whatever their "recieved wisdom" might be.

Since you also bring him up earlier, Sells may well have made a lot of his own input into his views, but the typical biblical literalist is a gull.

Rusty

Briar Rose,
How is Muehlenberg psychologically impaired other than his opinion on gay marriage differs to yours? What FACTS is he avoiding?

No one has realised a proof for God's existence or non existence after centuries of reasoned debate. Libraries have been filled on the subject without conclusion. Yet you presume enough to label he who differs to you on the matter delusional.

This is your opinion? With free speech, you can flagrantly call your adversary any name you like. Yet realise that when atheists claim people are delusional for disagreeing with them that they're not saying anything terribly sophisticated but name calling at an elementary level.

You say that you want to make marriage available to those who love each other. What if a man loves two sisters (or two brothers), according to you can he marry them both?
      

briar rose

Aren't you using the slippery slope fallacy? Ad slipperamus slopium? :)

Withdrawing advertising from a website does NOT equate with shutting it down. Save that argument for any internet filter fascists still lurking in the wings.

Also, it's a bit ironic that you bring up Fox News - albeit as just a throwaway example. Let's face it. Would The Oz have taken up this 'cause' if the offending article had been slagging Anzac Day or our boys in Afghanistan? There are more than enough indications in Pearson’s article to suggest the whole kerfuffle is just an excuse for an attack on gays, greenies and that old News Corp obsession ‘political correctness gone mad’.

(Ooh, did I just commit an ad hominem Murdochorium horribilis?)

As for MTR ... I suspect you may be resorting to 'most of us' fallacy. (Mostofusicum fallashismus?)

A quick scrutiny of The Drum commentariat for the sexy-dead-women article, reveals a pro- to anti-Melinda ratio of about 60:40 to start with, descending to about 50:50 midway, and then about 10:90 towards the end (as the poor old anti-Melinda tragics failed to realise that it was well after closing time and the lights had been turned out).

As for the OLO commentariat on Melinda's article, I did a VERY quick scan and found much the same unmoderated anti-feminism hate speech that caused me to leave OLO in disgust nearly 2 years ago - so I guess it's fair to say that 'most' OLO commenters don't agree with her.

Look, you think MTR hates men. That's your prerogative. I think MTR hates the cultural messages that are drip-fed to both men and women about what it means to be a woman or man in this society. That's her prerogative. I agree with her and will continue to do whatever is available to me to take a stand on this - sign petitions, write letters, comment on blogs, withdraw my business etc. That's my prerogative.

I have to admire your stickability, Dan S de Merengue. Continuing to fight on in the face of insuperable odds is the sign of a man with a mission.

(Others define this state of mind somewhat differently, but since this is a thread concerning argumentum ad hominem, I will refrain from drawing it to your attention.)

>>No one has realised a proof for God's existence or non existence after centuries of reasoned debate.<<

It has long been understood that "proving a negative" cannot be done, despite the prevalence of dumb websites asserting that it can. Here's one of my favourites:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

It relies - as they all do - on the redefinition of a "negative".

"...there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum). "Something" is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa. And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative.<<

What has been proven, of course, is the positive statement "this box contains no crows". Re-defining it to mean "something other than crows" is nothing more than mental legerdemain.

To show how ridiculous it is, try rephrasing "this universe contains no God" to "this universe contains something other than God".

Well, of course it does. But the fact remains that even as we continue to explore the universe, there is no sign, anywhere, of a God.

So we can actually stop at "No one has realised a proof for God's existence", since this is all that needs to be said.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1194

Pericles: Three thoughts from your erstwhile Athenian, Socrates, are appropriate:

First, with regard to you brilliant exposition on the unprovability of negatives: I think that you have possibly missed Dan's real strategy- it is not to co-opt reason to demonstrate God's existence, but to use the veil of reason as a medium to repeat his assertion that God exists. Your rebuttal only keeps Dan's assertion at top-of-mind. Socrates said "don't repeat the lie" (or words to that effect) because of what George Lakoff more recently called "framing" ("don't think of an elephant"). We are focussed on this belief about the "God-thing" rather than other things that may be more important.

The second Socratic point, which relates to the substance of the thread- belief as compared with knowledge. As I understand it, Socrates was advocating "justified true belief", rather than simply belief. A chain of cause and reason is required to make the belief durable.

Thirdly, Socrate's triple test of "true, good and useful" needs to be applied to statements before they are made. Otherwise the lie might be repeated and give durability to falsehoods.

Praise the Lord and pass the hemlock, Socrates!

Jedimaster,
Why deter Pericles from giving his comments unless he's talking waffle?

You say Socrates was advocating "justified true belief". A justifed belief is what I was asking of Briar Rose. I questioned her 'belief' that Muehlenberg was DELUSIONAL. I say that that is but ad hominem. 

Or can she justify her belief? To do so she must show what FACTS Muehlenberg ignores to demonstrate his state of psychosis. It otherwise reveals that she is simply of a different opinion to him over gay marriage, and subsequently wants to call him names. 

Why isn't anyone else calling her to account?
 

Probably because this thread has degenerated into an argumentum ad nauseam.

Loudmouth: Your interjection is an example of the core issue that we are struggling with here- rather than making a constructive comment- one that might pass Socrates 3-way test- you claim that the thread has "degenerated". In this case "degenerated" is quite insulting- an ad hominem if you will.

Although I don't agree with much of what Dan says, he seems to be trying to keep to the point. So is Pericles. They are trying to root out the basis of this ad hominem issue as well as determining whether people (such as Briar Rose) are consistent with their views. All good stuff. This is a hard issue.

So if you have not got a contribution to make that is true, good or useful, then why not keep silent, rather than sully the thread with unhelpful and unedifying utterances?

Sorry Jedimaster, I was stupidly trying to be facetious and shallow. I'll read all of the posts above more thoroughly.

But just to put my 2 cents' worth in, we all at various times hold to illusory notions, and these illusions can easily be transformed into delusions. For example, for most of human history, people have had the illusion that the sun rises in the east, as the earth revolves towards the east. Most of us have acted as if this illusory perception was correct, i.e. acted on a delusion. It does not necessarily mean that we and our ancestors have been delusional. merely that with the best 'science' around and with no particular malice aforethought, we have acted as if this delusion was true, even testable. No big deal: once the illusion is explained, most of us become aware of our mistaken notions. Those who persist in a mistaken belief and act on it, are indeed delusional. It would not be an ad hominem attack to say so.

Popper wrote a lot about the impossibility of justifying a belief, and the need to test and to try to falsify them instead. To the extent that I accept a belief which has been falsified unbeknownst to me, I may be harbouring an illusion, and if I act on it, then I am acting under a delusion. But I am not necessarily thereby delusional. If someone points out my delusion, that is not an ad hominem attack: it is a critique of my mistaken belief and quite justified. If they declare that I am thereby delusional, then yes, it may be. If I persist in the belief knowing of the critique, then yes, I am delusional, and it would not be an ad hominem attack for anyone to say so: it would be quite justified.

2 cents: time's up.

Joe

Loudmouth- you're redeemed! :-)

I think that the important aspect of this is the difference between "deluded" and "delusional". I might be (as loudmouth describes) deluded about something. This does not mean that I deluded about all things (delusional). Ad hominems seem to categorise people as permanently in an incorrigible state (eg delusional, denialist, craven etc) rather than tackling the particular issue, about which they may have an incorrect view.

So ad hominems aren't just "tackling the person, not the issue", but using language that condemns the person totally and forever, rather than pointing out particular foibles with the hope and intention that they are corrigible.

That's why I am averse to any labelling ending in "-ist" and "-ism", with the possible exception of "empiricist". The rest are categories of condemnation.