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.