[ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures

Damien Broderick 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.   :-)           [1]
>I think you have to remember that Stefano is a lawyer.
>Legal argument is a strange beast that lives in a different world to
>normal life.

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.

Damien Broderick

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list