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.