Personal Attacks - Inherently Personal Words

[Phi for All]

There is a certain hypocrisy between behaviors promoted here and behaviors promoted elsewhere by some behavior promoters. Assign whatever number you like to it.

 

 

I don't expect you'll ever realize how intellectually dishonest you're being here. I do expect you to realize that quoting people out of context from an entirely different thread isn't going to earn you much credibility.

[Acme]

I don't expect you'll ever realize how intellectually dishonest you're being here. I do expect you to realize that quoting people out of context from an entirely different thread isn't going to earn you much credibility.

You make my point well enough by questioning my intellectual prowess as well as my honesty. And nothing is out of context.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Let's all just take a breath before it goes too far down the rabbit hole. Acme, the quote you used from Phi came from an entirely different thread and was certainly out of context as you used it. It is not a particularly admirable way to try and contribute to discussion, so perhaps it would be best if you just left the personal accusations out of it entirely.

Do not respond to this note within the thread.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Someone once said to me "I can see why they didn't suggest that you take [math], you have to be smart to study maths".

 

Is this a personal attack?

[Ophiolite]

It would depend on context and on the character of the delivery.

 

Thus, if it said with a reflective and resigned tone it could mean "Yeah, I can't do maths either. I guess we just aren't smart enough." In such an example the remark would be the equivalent of a comradely hug.

 

If you had just expressed a silly idea, or carried out an inept action, and it was said disparagingly then it was likely a personal attack. What would turn it into a grey area is if you a) were never advised to do maths and b) are measurably of low intelligence. Then the person making the remark could claim they were simply making an objective, descriptive statement.

[Acme]

It would depend on context and on the character of the delivery.

 

Thus, if it said with a reflective and resigned tone it could mean "Yeah, I can't do maths either. I guess we just aren't smart enough." In such an example the remark would be the equivalent of a comradely hug.

 

If you had just expressed a silly idea, or carried out an inept action, and it was said disparagingly then it was likely a personal attack. What would turn it into a grey area is if you a) were never advised to do maths and b) are measurably of low intelligence. Then the person making the remark could claim they were simply making an objective, descriptive statement.

Therein lies the rub. There is a grand hypocrisy in all this, and while it may serve a useful purpose in maintaining the appearance of civility here, the Emperor has no clothes. As I said early on, I don't envy the staff & their pickle. G'donya for taking up the challenge.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I was never advised to take math and after letting my advisors know what I wanted to do they suggested that I take a couple computer science classes (where I learned how to apply basic functions involving math). I let the speaker know that.

[tar]

So,

An association of a thought to a person, and that person to that thought is likely to occur during a conversation about a thought.

Once a person promotes or defends a thought, thru an argument in its favor, or against its antithesis, he or she has "sided" with that thought, and invites others to take sides, one way or the other.

Agreement with the person IS agreement with the thought and agreement with the thought is agreement with the person, in the context of the particular thought. Saying that a thought is wrong in this context is telling the person they are wrong in having the thought, and is automatically thusly a personal attack and people naturally and correctly take offense.

Offense is an interesting word, in this context, because, in regards to defending yourself, and your idea, you take the offensive and strike back at the antithesis and its holders.

And, my most insightful addition to this topic is that since ideas and words are inherently personal by definition, it is to be expected that people should and will take them personally, and thusly one should be careful and attentive at all times to not only what, but who they are defending or offending. And in terms of ad hominum attacks this means to not carry a grudge from one debate or discussion into another, based on settling a score with an individual, rather than based on discussing or debating the thread topic.

<personal grievance with other member removed by moderator>

Regards, TAR

Edited June 27, 2014 by imatfaal
to put personal comments behind spoiler

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

tar

 

I did ask earlier that this thread be kept clear from personal examples and concentrate on the abstract ideas (here). I have placed your text regarding another member behind spoiler tags so the comments can be easily ignored. Please do not continue with examples from this site and complaints about other members.

 

do not respond to this moderation

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I feel I have to engage in this personal attack to set the record straight
...

I am sorry but no. I warned Tar and hid the section behind spoiler tags; I hoped that would be enough and good sense would prevail.

There were two requests in this page of the thread to avoid personal instances - you do not get the chance to retaliate. I have hidden your post. To prevent further escalation I have also hidden permanently the section of Tars post.

 

Do not discuss this moderation within the thread.

 

[tar]

Abstract ideawise I would like to add several components to the discussion.

 

Banter.

 

Friendship.

 

Team Membership.

 

Common goals.

 

In the case of all these components, there is abstract idea, but always with human will and human judgment behind it, therefore always a component of a personal nature, that the relationship between the parties involved would wheigh greatly in the evaluation of the intent of an attack on or the defense of an idea.

 

A year or so ago I visited the D-day memorial in Virginia. I cried. The allied powers had banded together and planned to get back onto the continent to defeat the axis powers.

 

Powerful ideas of freedom and human rights against the Nazis' oppression and might. People fought and died for a common idea.

 

There are some powerful ideas still at odds with each other in this world. There is NOT an objective, scientificly true idea, that everyone "should" hold.

 

We have to hold the ideas we have, defend them, make them better, have them hold sway in the world, and defeat the ideas that are not so good, in our judgement. You cannot do that in some objectively true fashion. Not in one that trumps everybody, because it is only the everybody that is having the ideas in the first place.

 

It cannot be only astrophysic experts, or brain surgeons, or billionaires, or European Heads of state, that hold and guard and mantain and improve upon the great ideas that have been in circulation on this planet for the last 4000 years. It cannot be only the top 3 percent of IQ that have and hold the ideas that humankind has. That would leave just about everybody idea free, which is absolute nonsense to consider.

 

People tend to take sides. Sometimes with power, sometimes with sense, sometimes with reason, sometimes with ideals. But always with other people.

 

And everybody protects their teamates and works for the good of the teams that they are members of.

 

So if the question is, when does an attack on an idea become a personal attack, I would say, as soon as a word is spoken against the idea.

 

Muslims place death sentences on people that speak against the ideas of Mohammed.

 

That is certainly taking offense at the attack on the abstract idea, and considering it a personal attack, worthy of a fight to the death, in response.

 

One is likely to defend their way of life against those who would like to take it away.

 

So this thread question should be expanded to include the consideration of proper behavior within the family, and within various levels of objectivity, beyond the family. But not expanded so far as to pretend that there is an objectively pure stance one can take, that would remove the person from the thought.

 

Regards, TAR