[OT on OT: ad personam vs ad hominem][OT rude or not, a different opinion] -Re: Beta 8.10 released

[Emanoil Kotsev]

--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Ignazio Palmisano <ignazio_io at yahoo.it> wrote:

> From: Ignazio Palmisano <ignazio_io at yahoo.it>
> Subject: Re: [OT on OT: ad personam vs ad hominem][OT rude or not, a different opinion] -Re: Beta 8.10 released
> To: "Kubuntu Help and User Discussions" <kubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 10:59 PM
> tom bell wrote:
> >> Fake politeness is useless, in this we agree. But
> if you disagree with 
> >> someone else's ideas, you attack the ideas,
> not the person. That's not 
> >> fake politeness, that's respect. (it's not
> meant to be a scolding, I'm 
> >> not referring to what has been said; the technique
> of attacking a person 
> >> whose ideas we don't share is old and well
> known, the exact term escapes 
> >> me - is it "ad personam"?)
> > ad hominem
> > 
> > Tom Bell
> 
> :D out of curiosity I've reread Schopenhauer
> definitions of the 
> arguments ad personam and ad hominem. To me, it seems that
> ad hominem is 
> the technique of using against the opponent the same
> arguments the 
> opponent has put forward, while ad personam corresponds to
> try and 
> discredit one's point by making personal attacks,
> either to let the 
> audience believe that such a bad person can only be in the
> wrong or to 
> make the opponent angry and therefore more susceptible to
> other 
> dialectic tricks. So I maintain I was right in my naming ;)
> 
> I.
> 

This is an invention of Shopenhauer. The classical term is ad hominem, when personal characteristics are used as argument against some statement (thesis).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I do not remember Shopenhauer in details to argue about.

If you like it to be right I don't mind ;-) But in my posting I used a question (do you get the point now), which was in the middle of the debate ... and I do not see there any kind of argument (ad hominem or ad personam), which may lead you to this conclusion.
In fact the subjective interpretation of this question, may let you think I'm insulting the person ... but I would say this goes too far and is/was a subject of discussion initiated by another question "What do you mean exactly?"

Regards