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

[Ignazio Palmisano]

Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- 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
> 


http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/

I.