why do people tend to attack people and not idea's?

[lostsoul]

This may sound like a stupid thread, but i was wondering why do people attack people and not the idea's. Like someone makes a point, and instead of someone trying to debate the point they'll focus on insulting the person personally.

I notice this alot here, but also in the world..like instead of attacking mao's idea's..many people i speak too attack his sexual behavoir or his bathing habits.

It is a way of saying "i can't debate you like a normal human being so i will act like a 2 year old"? or is there another purpose behind it?

Take care

[GCusack]

Its peoples way of debating when they have noting to say!
Its a very good point! You will get further if u attack the persons point of view on a non-personal level because then u r being the better person and they have to answer ur questions and then progress is made!
Good thread!! I agree!

Take Care urself!

[hazard]

this might sound hollow coming from me, but it is an indication of bad reasoning. a personal "ad hominen" attack ussually is perceived as an argument and is so used as such. bad reasoning can be attributed to two possibilities. a deficiency on the part of the arguer to defend his or her position or a deficiency of the position itself.

[CradleDDT]

its discrediting...basically we attack the person to discredit what they are saying...

this can be for many reasons, not knowing the topic, etc...bascially if you get in a debate of discussion that gets heated, to "win" you have to find an advantage over that person, and if you can tear down their credibility usally due to something off topic you look more favorable even if it is only in your eyes...

that and on a deeper level it creates protection that we may be wrong in our beleifs, if the person is making good points and winning so to speak and you are stanuch in your beliefs but the oppoent is causing questioning, you tear them down so you can say well i wil never beleive anything from a @#@[email protected]#2...no matter how right they may be...

if you look hard this can be seen even in your confrontations with a spouse of girl/boyfriend

[synthesis]

It's called 'ad homenim', and you'll need to get used to this cowardly debating tactic when dealing with capitalists.

[hazard]

definately.

there are variations of the ad hominen attack. a good arguer uses an ad hominen attack that seems to fit into the argument and is difficult to detect. the capitalists, however, version is simply avoiding the context of the argument and resorting to name calling. losers.

[lostsoul]

I understand what your saying. Its really quite stupid, i have seen threads started just to insult members(there is probally more, but the ones i remember are of me, hazard, and redstar..but anyone with a different opinion gets one it seems).

I just don't understand how people can do it without feeling stupid? Like when someone goes off topic just to insult a writter, it just makes them look extremely retarded.

[peaccenicked]

In the dialogue of the deaf. The capis hear nothing. We
dont hear that they hear nothing. They get frustrated because they are irrational, so they get ballistic on persons rather than ideas. We get frustrated and go ballistic on them.
This forum is just such crap, it is funny.

[Urban Rubble]

I think it's funny how you guys seem to think this is related to capitalists. I agree, alot of them resort to name calling, but so do alot of people on this board.

[Dhul Fiqar]

True, it is an alarming habit of many people to resort to discrediting the who makes a particular argument rather than the argument itself.

Often it seems to have to do with grievances from past threads, and I frankly think it undermines the integrity of debate on the board.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 3:56 am on May 20, 2003)

[Exploited Class]

ad hominem and strawman debate tactics litter this board on almost every topic imaginable.

I am just use to it, it is like that on almost any board. And really unless you know you are doing it, you don't know better.

Seriously, it would be nice if everybody who posted on boards had a few courses on proper debate, but that just isn't feasible.

[lostsoul]

i think i'm 50/50 on this. At first it piss's me off, that people can be so stupid. But on the other hand, in the real world when you are debating with someone, and their losing they don't just give up and say "you win". they usually end up calling names or tryin to attack you and not the idea.

I haven't studied the Russian revulation very much, but i know the chinese communists were using logic and discusing intelligently with the nationalist, and yet the nationalists used simalir tactics(and evunually ended up using volience).

It would be alot better if everyone here could not try to target individuals, but on the other hand, if we can't change it, then maybe we should take it as "training" for the outside world.

Urban Rubble - your right, this is not only for one group, its universial. Its a trait of a loser.

[suffianr]

Interesting, but that doesn't change the fact that Stalin was a fat ****.

[hazard]

this problem, as I see, it comes from, thats right, another fallacy!

equivocation

argument really has two meanings. one is a process of debate and the other is a disagreement of any kind

people who disagree over who ate the last piece of pizza can be said to argue, although that argument would be nothing like an argument between two people who are arguing over whether a new tax is necessary or not

since both are similiar in that they involve a disagreement of some kind, the two often resemeble one another

so, the pizza argument may involve such tatics as inductive logic ( ie. the only person not allergic to the ingredients on that slice of pizza was you ) while the tax argument may involve such tactics as name calling (ie supporting that law makes you a fascist ).

actually, many arguments on this board are more akin to the "pizza" style argument in its basis. for the rest, there is no room for treating the argument like a disagreement over who said what first.

[vox]

I try to do both, myself.

I attack the argument, but I also like to degrade the right-winger making the argument. I think that this is fair, for right-wingers are attempting to degrade the vast majority of humanity with their policies.

Some people wish to believe that right-wingers are just ignorant. I give them more respect than that. I think that they know exactly what they are doing, and that's why I think they are inhuman filth.

So, yeah, I call names, but you'll always find an argument there, too.

vox

[Anonymous]

How, may I ask, are we inhuman?

[FatFreeMilk]

I second that!

[hazard]

yeah, anme calling the RW is always fun

my defence for doing it is "preemptive" striking

I just KNOW eventually thats what they will resort to

[vox]

The policies endorsed by right-wingers inevitably lead to poverty for the many and luxury for the few. Adam Smith knew this, Karl Marx knew this, and I know this. Indeed, anyone who has paid attention to the world at all knows this to be true.

Right-wingers are filth precisely because they condemn others to misery.

Right-wingers do not deserve sympathy, or pity, or even recognition as human beings. They are the filthiest of animals, no good to themselves or anyone else.

There is no middle ground here. You, DC, wish to inflict pain in the world. I wish to stop pain. We are diametrically opposed.

There has never been a question as to what I think of right-wingers. This is at least the third time I've talked about this very thing. Right-wing policies increase hunger, Leftist policies end it. Right-wing policies push people into poverty, Leftist policies lift them out.

Now, I suppose I could imagine that you don't know what you're talking about when you spout right-wing rhetoric, but I give you the benefit of the doubt. I expect people to understand the words they write, the positions they hold.

Now, how could I beleive that someone who stands in direct opposition to me is trying to do the right thing? I can't, of course.

We've made our choices, and I believe yours to be intentionally harmful to much of the workd, and we have the empirical data to back that up.

All you have are opinion pieces from the "National Review."

Pathetic.

[hazard]

vox:

are you, however, willing to inflict pain in order to prevent it?

this is the marked difference between socialists and communists. while communists are ready to fight for what they believe in, socialists are content to use non-violnce to achieve their ends.

both stances have their finer points

[Kapitan Andrey]

(Firs of all: Tell Urban Rubble not to insult me here or this topic will be flooded by our insultings)
About me:

I'm starting to insult somone if:

1)(MAIN) I repeat elementary thing to someone more than 5 times and he still can't understand my position!
2)(MAIN) Someone is stalinist...Thanks to Malte, this thing is allowed here!
3)(MAIN) Someone without the reason starts to insult me or call me a racist, imperialist, sexist...
4)(MAIN) Someone insulting Che!
5) Someone insulting my forum-mates!
6) Someone insulting my parents!
7) ...someone is trotskist or leninist...sometimes I'm ought to be silent, because there are alot of true communists!

(Edited by Kapitan Andrey at 7:14 am on May 28, 2003)

[IHP]

Kapitan, well I do recall that YOU misunderstood someone, and starting abusing the living daylights out of him. Even if you did misunderstand him, nothing he said could have possibly been taken as offensive. I don't think your list is complete.

--IHP

[Palmares]

I don't think there should be a list. Such tactics are juvenile. If I can't attack someone's beliefs, I don't say anything.

"When ignorance reigns, life is lost."
- Zack de la Rocha

[Urban Rubble]

Krapitan Andrea, why do you bring my name into this when I haven't even posted in this topic for like 2 weeks ? Plus, I don't insult you, I call you an imperialist, you are one. You support Russia stealing Chechnya's land, that is Imperialism. You said you wanted all yanks dead, that is racism. You reply to my posts, even when I don't insult you, with FUCK YOU IDIOT MORON BASTARD, simply if you disagree with me. That's not O.K, that's the main reason I give you shit, because you insult people without being provoked all the time. If you want to call a truce and be civil then we can, until then you will be known as Krapitan Andrea the racist imperialist russian. Good day sir.

I'm not trying to fight, I'm just replying to your post. Notice there were no real insults.

[nz revolution]

And Urban Rubble supports the US war in Iraq?

reeks of Imperialism here...

[Urban Rubble]

Hey stupid, pull your head out of you ass. Where did I say I supported the war in Iraq ? Can't find where ? That's because I never did.

Try to not to make assumptions about people, just because I recognize that Saddam is evil doesn't mean I supported the war.

Are you really so stupid that you think you can read my mind ? Go back to the "What has Americas army done to earn respect ?" thread, read my post, then realize how stupid you just made yourself look.

[Urban Rubble]

We need to build a bomb that can destroy ideas =)

[atlanticche]

this is because people are stupid they have nothing else to say so they focus on others plus people find it hard to attack an idea it is easier to attack the one with the idea so there is no one around to support the idea
but the idea still exists

[atlanticche]

you cannot destroy an idea so its best to target people
you can never get ride of an idea unless you destroy everything
the world

[Urban Rubble]

I was just joking. I was referencing the Daily Show

John Stewart: The war will not be succesful until we kill the idea of Saddam, so what we need is a bomb that can kill idea's.

Just a joke.

[Millennium]

Hahaha! I love threads like these. I'll be sure to remember this one next time a Left Winger here resorts to cries of "racism" after I express an opinion which differs from that of the mainstream. I agree that all of you are right to point out how irrational and dishonorable ad hominem arguing is, but your complaints strike me as hypocritical. So far the only one here who has made an actual attempt to debate my ideas and convince me of their falsity is LardLad.

The best way to avoid hearing ad hominem attacks is to avoid offering them, to tell whoever is doing it that you don't respect that kind of behavior. Admittedly, it's sissy, and not very much fun, but it's the only way I've found to actually open up a diologue and find some way to resolve personal conflicts.


There is no middle ground here. You, DC, wish to inflict pain in the world. I wish to stop pain. We are diametrically opposed.
I think you are dichotomizing and oversimplifying, and probably misconstruing DC's wishes to boot. Let's find out, shall we?

DC, do you wish to inflict pain on the world?

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 5:11 am on June 1, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Of course not, what a foolish assumption Vox. I would only inflict pain on those whom I deem deserving of it.

[Millennium]

Are you sure?

--Mark

[Anonymous]

Absolutely.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 5:05 am on June 1, 2003
Of course not, what a foolish assumption Vox. I would only inflict pain on those whom I deem deserving of it.


very off topic, but what do you feel gives you the right to "Deem" who deserves to be inflicted with pain?