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

[Emanoil Kotsev]

--- On Wed, 10/15/08, tom bell <cbell44 at cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> From: tom bell <cbell44 at cfl.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: kubuntu-users Digest, Vol 45, Issue 99
> To: kubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 2:15 AM
> > --- 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
> > 
> > 
> If you ever take a course on debate you will find that
> indeed "ad
> hominem" is listed among the classic debate styles and
> is eschewed as a
> personal attack not worthy of being used in a serious
> debate.
> 
> Tom Bell
> 

I think Ignatio took too many courses may be in philosophy as he is pointing me (us) to an aspect that I/we was/were not aware of.
What I disagree with is the premiss (the assumption) he makes.

regards