[ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures
thespike at satx.rr.com
Tue Aug 19 16:59:09 UTC 2008
At 08:06 AM 8/19/2008 +0000, BillK wrote:
> > Stefano writes
> >> Arguments ad personam are always more compelling than arguments ad rem.
> > Ah. So thanks for removing a misunderstanding I had. I was inferring that
> > "ad personam" and "ad hominem"
> > were the same thing. :-) 
>I think you have to remember that Stefano is a lawyer.
>Legal argument is a strange beast that lives in a different world to
Objection! Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial!
Stefano means "ad personam" and this has zero to do with "ad
hominem". We went through this a month or so back.
Oddly enough, wikipedia gets it wrong:
<argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking
the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt
to discredit the argument. >
No. It's showing that your claim flies in the face of the very
process you use in an attempt to advance it. A coarse example of such
an error (which an argumentum ad personam might rebut) is standing up
in court and vehemently arguing at the top of your voice that the
blow you received to the throat has rendered you voiceless.
More information about the extropy-chat