Ad Hominems..

[twoblink]

Look,

I'm all for a good Rosie O'Donut name calling, and FeinSwine is not exactly the best of names, but Tyrants often have horrible nicknames and so I'm not exactly throwing sympathy her direction..

BUT..

They are public figures in the limelight and IMHO on the wrong side of the fight. Most of us on THR and imported from TFL, we are on the SAME SIDE.

Say it with me boyz and girlz.. WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE.

We love guns and we want less tyranny.. If those aren't the two goals you have, then speak up!! We'd love to convince you otherwise..

But PLEASE, don't attack each other.. As the old addage goes:

"Don't raise your voice or resort to name calling, when you should actually be reenforcing your point..."

Disagree!! That's great! That's what America is all about! That's what freedom is all about. But people, you are NOT A CARTOON, don't resort to name calling, if you think your position is right and the other is wrong, point that out. Name calling is what my 3rd grade students do; who have no method to reenforce the logics of their arguement.

REMOVE THE AD HOMINEMS against each other on the forum.. and let's discuss the issues.. discuss THE ISSUES..

Look, we hate Big Brother, and we really don't need Mods to regulate us, and so regulate yourself and fewer interesting threads will be closed due to the massive personal attacks contained within. Ask yourself, is this what I would say to that person's face if we were at a THR gathering? If so, then say it, if not, then refrain from typing it. Think Twice, Then think a third time! I don't want Mods to regulate all the threads, so regulate yourselves please.

Thank you. Now let's have some good heated debates, without the personal attacks.

<Step off soap box>

 

[mdsteele]

Good stuff! I agree.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Thank you. I will remind that the definition of civil conduct is acting decently even when no negative consequences are attached to being rude. Let's concentrate on having a pleasant debate (even about unpleasant topics) and, in passing, on favorably impressing the lurkers.

 

[280PLUS]

stepping on soap box,,,

yea,,,what them guys said!!

stepping back off,,,

 

[revlar]

I stand back and observe on these forums - but rarely post for the very reason that ad hominems are all too common.

When one personally insults you rather than rationally addressing your post - thats a good indication that your argument likely has merit.

 

[NukemJim]

When one personally insults you rather than rationally addressing your post - thats a good indication that your argument likely has merit

Let's concentrate on having a pleasant debate (even about unpleasant topics) and, in passing, on favorably impressing the lurkers.

REMOVE THE AD HOMINEMS against each other on the forum.. and let's discuss the issues.. discuss THE ISSUES..

Yeahh ! What they said

Primarily because they said it better than I could.

NukemJim

 

[XLMiguel]

One shoudl be able to disagree without being disagreeable, afterall, abusing the witness is a tactic used when one's argument has no merit . . . most here are capable of better

 

[WonderNine]

Actually, this is one of the most civil gun boards out there...

I don't understand where all this stuff is coming from lately.

 

[Moparmike]

I'll give you ad hominem boy...

Official Forum Flame Form
===================================
Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie
[x] Loser
[x] Troll
[ ] Spammer
[ ] 12 year old
[ ] Pervert
[X] "VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!" (Ala Monty Python )
[ ] Nerd
[ ] l337 d00d/"vet"
[ ] Other: illegal immigrant

You Are Being Flamed Because
[ ] You posted a Nudity thread (anime or normal).
[ ] You whine like a ***** (Rhymes with itch).
[ ] You bumped a thread from the last page.
[ ] You started an off-topic thread.
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message .
[ ] You don't know which forum to post in.
[ ] You posted false information (or lack thereof).
[x] You posted something totally uninteresting.
[ ] You doubleposted.
[ ] You posted a message all written in CAPS (oR aLtErNaTe CaPs).
[ ] You posted a X > Y thread. LAME.
[x] I don't like your tone of voice.
[ ] You did not post on The High Road.

To Repent, You Must:
[x] Give up your AOL Internet account
[x] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[ ] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Be my love slave
[x] Apologize to everybody on this forum
[ ] Go stand in the middle of an intersection
[ ] Post something nice and conforming with the rules of this forum.
[x] Sing the Lumberjack song and "Every sperm is sacred" song.

In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[x] You suck
[x] Get a life
[ ] Never post again
[ ] I pity your dog
[ ] I think your IQ must be 6
[ ] Take your immature, childish crap somewhere else
[ ] Do us all a favor and jump into some industrial equipment
[ ] Go play Dress-Up Barbie Onlineâ„¢
[ ] All of the above

Official forum flame form courtesy of www.albinoblacksheep.com .

 

[bountyhunter]

I Must have a Thick Skin

This forum seems like Shangri La when it comes to people minding their manners, I have yet to see anything that even makes me look twice.

Of course, I also post on the 1911 Forum and Glock Talk where the rules are that any topic violates the forum guidelines if the moderator disagrees with the facts posted, and the second rule is that personal attacks are never tolerated unless they are directed at people the mod doesn't like.... in which case the loacl gang of thugs is encouraged to pile on.

I haven't seen anything here that approaches the typical dung slinging you see on most forums.

 

[hillbilly]

I see nothing wrong in calling public figures natsy names.

That goes with the territory of being a public figure.

In addition, name-calling may be a logical fallacy and a propaganda device, but it is a highly effective propanda device.

Cany anyone hear the words Crook and Nixon together and not make the connection? How about Slick and Willy in close proximity? There are countless examples of name calling being used as an effective propaganda device.

I agree that calling each other names on this board is not constructive.

However, I also know that name calling happens.

And it offers a chance for learning.

Here is a link for Logical Fallacies, including Ad Hominem.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Logical Fallacies may be used for propaganda, but are not necessarily propaganda in and of themselves.

Logical Fallacies are errors in reason, and may result merely from sloppy thinking.

Propaganda, however, is an emotional appeal, and almost never results from accidents or sloppiness. Logical fallacies can be used as propaganda, but not all propaganda is a logical fallacy.

Here is a link for propaganda techniques.

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/


It is crucial to know and understand logical fallacies and propaganda.

First, you must be able to recognize and defend yourself against these.

Second, you want to eliminate logical fallacies from your own arguments, as false reasoning ultimately proves destructive to those arguments.

However, you must also recognize these as potential weapons to be used, especially the propaganda techniques.

It may seem dirty, but propaganda works. That's why advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry. That's why "image consultants" and "spin doctors" make so much money. It's why "public relations" is a lucrative career.

Think of it as the ultimate in intellectual and linguistic CCW............

hillbilly

 

[Guntalk]

Just a thought.

The best message board/forum I visit (aviation related) may one of be the oldest on the net. It is very civil. You may not post there unless you do it under your real name.

Amazing how that helps.

 

[MeekandMild]

For the average anti shouldn't the word be "ad simian"?

Seriously, if you want to see some ad hominum insults look at the political cartoons from any big city liberal newsrag. Generally NRA is portrayed as a unshaven Irish appearing thug with a cigar.

 

[ARperson]

Geez, this board is nice, almost to the point of being boring, compared to many of the others out there. One in particular is notorious for allowing its moderators to engage in the very behavior that is prohibited, which you can imagine leads to anything but civilized behaviors.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Almost everybody uses the anonymity of the internet to mouth off when otherwise they probably wouldn't even blink in a person-to-person situation. When you take that into consideration, you realize how silly it is to get upset over the issue.

If name-calling is all we're guilty of, we're doing pretty good. Don't expect perfection though because you'll be eternally disappointed.

 

[KMKeller]

Hominems? I hate hominems. Grits is ok, but hominems just don't sit right.

 

[revlar]

There's a good reason why this board is called "The High Road".

We should all prove ourselves to be worthy of traveling it.

 

[280PLUS]

"it takes two to tango"

(or "alright, why am i on this soapbox again?")

inspirational rule of thumb from a long lost marraige counselor

the one who starts it is guilty, but the one(s) who join in and retaliate are just as guilty

learn to walk away,,,

i suggest if you or i spot one of these evil "ad hominems" we click that little button that says "report blah blah blah"

instead of "fanning the flames" as it was so succinctly put to me at some point

and turn it over to the capable hands of our mods ASAP

(thats "As Soon As Possible", for the unknowing)

they can't catch everything right away,,,nor should they have to

maybe you'll help save a good thread before it's too late

think of it that way,,,

ya buncha

 

[twoblink]

Actually, what annoys me the most is not even the name calling, it's the result of it.

They derail and hijack a perfectly good thread, and then the mods have to lock the thread.. and that ends a thread which otherwise might have provided useful information an insight..

 

[280PLUS]

correctamundo,,,

many, many good contributions get lost in the shuffle because of the actions of just a few,,,

 

[bountyhunter]

Cany anyone hear the words Crook and Nixon together and not make the connection?....Here is a link for Logical Fallacies, including Ad Hominem.

This really takes me back... in 1972, I was in college and happened to be taking a class in formal logic. The teacher used to use Nixon speeches as teaching aid because they were a virtual bonanza of logical blunders.

The well known "checkers speech" stands to this day in the Hall of Infamy as possible the most convoluted rambling of logic ever devised by man.

If you never read it, please do:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/richardnixoncheckers.html

It includes a picture of the famous Checkers himself. Here's a sample:


"One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I don't they'll probably be saying this about me, too. We did get something, a gift, after the election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And believe it or not, the day before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore, saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was? It was a little cocker spaniel dog, in a crate that he had sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted, and our little girl Tricia, the six year old, named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it."


" And that's why I am here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case. I'm sure that you have read the charge, and you've heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.

Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong. I am saying it, incidentally, that it was wrong, just not illegal, because it isn't a question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isn't enough. The question is, was it morally wrong? I say that it was morally wrong -- if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon, for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given, and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made."


"I say that a man who, like Mr. Stevenson, has pooh-poohed and ridiculed the Communist threat in the United States -- he said that they are phantoms among ourselves. He has accused us that have attempted to expose the Communists, of looking for Communists in the Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife. I say that a man who says that isn't qualified to be President of the United States. ........ Regardless of what happens, I'm going to continue this fight. I'm going to campaign up and down in America until we drive the crooks and the Communists and those that defend them out of Washington. And remember folks, Eisenhower is a great man, believe me. He's a great man. And a vote for Eisenhower is a vote for what's good for America."





They just don't write 'em like that any more.

 

[Greybeard]

Not that it was the first time, but it appears that Senator Kennedy just erred bigtime when he referred to the 6 judge nominees as "Neanderthals". I suspect that even some die-hard Democrats will be quite ashamed of that one. Or should be.