Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on August 31, 2004, 11:19:09 AM
-
Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of an argument, e.g. the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims.
For example:
Witness: "I saw X murder the shopkeeper."
Defense attorney: "Isn't it true that you are a convicted felon?"
On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process.
Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a logical fallacy called Ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man".
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack)
:aok
-
So reallly most of our debates here are a personal attack?
-
Don't know if I'd say "most", but there certainly are a lot.
-
And why should we believe a person of "your" ilk about this issue?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And why should we believe a person of "your" ilk about this issue?
:rofl
-
Sometimes this is perceived as a "personal attack".
On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process.
I'd much rather provoke thought than offend someone though I'm sure I have been gulity of the latter in some of our more heated "discussions" here.
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
So reallly most of our debates here are a personal attack?
So it does look like.. at least many are very keen to attack me :>
-
Bait
-
I can tell this thread is not going to last long. Nice troll Sandman.
However, you seem to have quoted the 'legal' meaning of 'personal attack'. I think I can be safe in saying the legal explanation for most things falls well outside the defination procured using 'common sense'.
-
Of course Skuzzy is one of those "Administrators", and you know how those kind of people are...
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I can tell this thread is not going to last long. Nice troll Sandman.
As always, my best trolls are unintentional. ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And why should we believe a person of "your" ilk about this issue?
Punk. :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I can tell this thread is not going to last long. Nice troll Sandman.
However, you seem to have quoted the 'legal' meaning of 'personal attack'. I think I can be safe in saying the legal explanation for most things falls well outside the defination procured using 'common sense'.
Are you saying lawyers don't have common sense, or that they either ignore it or don't use it?
And isn't that a generalized personal attack?
:D :D :rofl :rofl
-
as tempers flare, and ego's clash...
so are the days of out board.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I can tell this thread is not going to last long. Nice troll Sandman.
However, you seem to have quoted the 'legal' meaning of 'personal attack'. I think I can be safe in saying the legal explanation for most things falls well outside the defination procured using 'common sense'.
Ah, but Skuzzy your definition only falls into the realm of which side of the arguement you agree with.
-
Sandman is a lefty passifist wimp
MT is not black and drives a very gay car
Skuzzy is IT - nuff said
Furious is a loser and anyone that associates with him is a loser
Those weren't personal attacks, but rather descriptions of the individuals. You see, I'm not "resorting" to name calling. I'm starting with it.
Oh yea... HiTech is a sheep shagging putz
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And why should we believe a person of "your" ilk about this issue?
: Isn't it true that you're a booger-eater?! Admit it!
Ahhh...so this is how it works, eh? Hmmmm...I feel.....empowered, somehow.:p
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Sandman is a lefty passifist wimp
MT is not black and drives a very gay car
Skuzzy is IT - nuff said
Furious is a loser and anyone that associates with him is a loser
Those weren't personal attacks, but rather descriptions of the individuals. You see, I'm not "resorting" to name calling. I'm starting with it.
Oh yea... HiTech is a sheep shagging putz
:rofl
-
"For example:
Witness: "I saw X murder the shopkeeper."
Defense attorney: "Isn't it true that you are a convicted felon?""
maybe but... if the defense attorney said.. "isn't it true that you are blind as a bat and had to have a seeing eye dog just to get to the courtroom?"
that would be a personal attack and a reasonable one.
lazs
-
Well ill post here just to show off my new Sig line which is sure to envoke a personal attack! Then we can see the definition in action!
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
Well ill post here just to show off my new Sig line which is sure to envoke a personal attack! Then we can see the definition in action!
Heh, wouldn't touch that sig line with a 10-foot pole.
-
All I know for sure is that Sandman is a big pansie.
-
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle:
All cats are animals
All dogs are animals
Therefore, All Cats are Dogs
Addressing an argument with a personal attack constitutes an example of the ad hominem abusive fallacy.
ad hominem abusive is a class of ad hominem fallacy.
Calling into question the person making the argument, and not the argument itself constitutes an example of the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy.
ad hominem circumstantial is a class of ad hominem fallacy.
Therefore (by the fallacy of excluded middle): All ad hominem circumstantial arguments are ad hominem abusive ones.
And so, all ad hominem circumstantial arguments are personal attacks.
Now, concerning what constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial:
ad hominem as a class is a fallacy that involves arguing against the person (ad hominem) making the argument and not against the argument itself (ad argumentum).
Lazs' example of the blind man seeing isn't one, since in that case, the blind man is part of the argument: "I, person X, saw Y" is invalid if Person X is incapable of seeing.
On the other hand, if someone is arguing, "Invading Iraq is a bad idea because A) there's no evidence of WMD and B) It will only engender generations of hostility towards Americans", the fact that that person dodged the draft, has frequent sexual liaisons with farm animals, and wears Axe body spray has nothing to do witht the argument.
ad hominem circumstantial is the most common form of ad hominem on bulletin boards, ("I don't care what michael moore says; the very fact that he said it makes it untrue")
Other forms of ad hominem are the aforementioned abusive, "A: We should not invade Iraq. B: A is an ******* and a terrorist", and the always popular tu quoque ("you too"), as in, "A: We should not invade Iraq., B: but A invaded Vietnam". The question isn't what the other person did or is doing, but rather what should b edone.
-
Dinger is a word nerd.
-
I thought fallacy was a reference to state of the non-aroused male organ.
-
One thing you must remember about the "aren't you a convicted felon" line.
Yes, you are attacking the character of the person. The belief is that someone who has a criminal record, especially if it involves a crime of moral terpitude (sp), is less trustworthy than someone who is not. Maybe the jury buys this, maybe they don't. But part of the decision process is making sure the jury knows who they are listening to.
However, when you do this, you have to be telling the truth. If not, you either get slapped down by the judge or you end up looking silly. Which is a bad thing. So there are safeguards built in that make sure anything you bring up is the truth.
Here, I can call Airhead a gay mushroom farmer who wouldn't know the truth if it crawled in his shoe, or that Funked is a really an undersexed librarian who doesn't even have license and nobody knows the truth. You can say any untrue statement you want, and there is no real way to be called on it.
-
Oh, and one other thing. By pointing out that the witness is a felon, you make them more suceptable to an attack on their testimony. Or by pointing out their relationship to the people involved in the case and how it would affect their tesitmony.
An attorney who just attacks the person risks being seen through by the jury and having them turn on him. And there are different ways to do it. Personally, I prefer to attack the witness' argument/testimony and go after him. After the jury has seen me attack him and call what he's said into question, it creates a doubt in their mind. Then I'll end with pointing out that along with the points I've made about how he's full of crap, there's another reason you shouldn't believe this person...he's a felon, theif, robber, etc.
This is also why if your witness has a felony conviction/moral terpitude convcition, you bring it up on direct. Take the wind out of the other side's sails and remove some of the sting. That way, if the witness is confronted with his past, the jury has had time to digest the news and it wont shock them.
-
Blah blah blah...Your honor, Dune is ghey.
-
I don't really know how you can term anything said here as a personal attack. After all I don't really know any of you ( children of unmarried parents). Even if I was to describe any of you as a (having a propensity to self abuse) or being a (head resembling a part of the body referred to using the shortened version of the name Richard.) . You could hardly take offence. But if you do you can all (anglo saxon word with vulgar connotations. ) off.
-
I have to go to court soon, the defendant is a convited felon who has done the same thing. The past felony charges CAN be brought up as evidence to his character. Now HOW you bring this evidence up is the tricky part.
NUTTZ
Originally posted by Dune
Oh, and one other thing. By pointing out that the witness is a felon, you make them more suceptable to an attack on their testimony. Or by pointing out their relationship to the people involved in the case and how it would affect their tesitmony.
An attorney who just attacks the person risks being seen through by the jury and having them turn on him. And there are different ways to do it. Personally, I prefer to attack the witness' argument/testimony and go after him. After the jury has seen me attack him and call what he's said into question, it creates a doubt in their mind. Then I'll end with pointing out that along with the points I've made about how he's full of crap, there's another reason you shouldn't believe this person...he's a felon, theif, robber, etc.
This is also why if your witness has a felony conviction/moral terpitude convcition, you bring it up on direct. Take the wind out of the other side's sails and remove some of the sting. That way, if the witness is confronted with his past, the jury has had time to digest the news and it wont shock them.
-
Personally, with few exceptions such as Prosecutors, I have found that common sense and attorneys are mutually exclusive categories. :p :D
And Dinger is DEFINATELY a word nerd! :aok
-
Wow some one else used the words common sense,now that was neat. I read it 3 times just to fell the sweetness of those words...wtg.
Not bad sandman , I guess I am a little confused, you know, it being your thread and all, but it was good reading.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Not bad sandman , I guess I am a little confused, you know, it being your thread and all...
Not sure what your point is...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Not sure what your point is...
Demaw1 is under that delusional influence of the right wing media machine. It tells him that nothing good could ever come from a liberal... and no matter how petty it seems he must not let an opportunity for a jab go by. Even if it is just a silly thread on a BBS.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
And Dinger is DEFINATELY a word nerd! :aok
YEAH !!
:)
-
That's definitely.
Che andassi a fare le spese. ;)