[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, 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: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 10:11 AM
> Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
> > --- 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
> 
> Uh that's rough, now I have to complain to
> Schopenhauer... will take 
> forever to find his email address ;)
> 

Hahaha, may be in some next incarnation :-D

Could you give me the name of the book you found this. I've read Schopenhauer many years ago and may be it's a time to reread. (unfortunately not before 8.11)

regards