Shady Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 For whatever reasons, whenever I post, it seems I get a flurry of ad hominem attacks directed toward me instead of addressing the issue of the post. They're not personal attacks, but shouldn't as hominem attacks also be against forum rules?
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Yes...such direct and indirect attacks should not be permitted. Forum rules clearly require that ideas be debated and challenged without attacking members by name, derisive nicknames, outright slurs, or other personal bias because of differing opinion(s). Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 I know why this post exists, and Shady it was not an ad-homenin against you. I thought I was thin skinned at times.
guyser Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Yes...such direct and indirect attacks should not be permitted. Forum rules clearly require that ideas be debated and challenged without attacking members by name, derisive nicknames, outright slurs, or other personal bias because of differing opinion(s). LOL, pretty rich. Did you gloss over the 2nd rule in the Forum Rules?
Shady Posted March 13, 2013 Author Report Posted March 13, 2013 LOL, pretty rich.Did you gloss over the 2nd rule in the Forum Rules?Do you have to start up with ad hominem attacks in this of all threads?What the moderators need to understand, is they ad hominem attacks lead to personal attacks. Of you want to cut down on personal attacks, police the ad hominem ones.
The_Squid Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 You should be careful with the trolling posts... With all your rules infractions, I'm guessing the mods are keeping you on a short leash these days... and creating drama probably won't endear you to them...
guyser Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Do you have to start up with ad hominem attacks in this of all threads? What the moderators need to understand, is they ad hominem attacks lead to personal attacks. Of you want to cut down on personal attacks, police the ad hominem ones. Ok shady, show me the part that was the ad hominem you reference here. As for this..."is they ad hominem attacks lead to personal attacks'...do you even know what AH means?
GostHacked Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Would be ad hominem to say the 'Truth Detector' is broken?
Shady Posted March 13, 2013 Author Report Posted March 13, 2013 You should be careful with the trolling posts... With all your rules infractions, I'm guessing the mods are keeping you on a short leash these days... and creating drama probably won't endear you to them... You should be careful with the trolling posts... With all your rules infractions, I'm guessing the mods are keeping you on a short leash these days... and creating drama probably won't endear you to them... I'm not sure how posting about a legitimate issue, in the proper section of the forum is considered trolling.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Ok shady, show me the part that was the ad hominem you reference here. As for this..."is they ad hominem attacks lead to personal attacks'...do you even know what AH means? So are you advocating for such attacks as normal discourse ? Does this increase the leverage needed to prevail in the discussion over and above the topic or related/unrelated tangents ? Or are these just cheap and lazy attempts to shut another member up ? Economics trumps Virtue.
guyser Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) So are you advocating for such attacks as normal discourse ? Does this increase the leverage needed to prevail in the discussion over and above the topic or related/unrelated tangents ? Or are these just cheap and lazy attempts to shut another member up ? Chickens and bananas are on sale. Good? Because my asking shady a question and your post referencing it have about the same to do with each other. Not squab, chickens. Edited March 13, 2013 by guyser
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Chickens and bananas are on sale. Good? Because my asking shady a question and your post referencing it have about the same to do with each other. Not squab, chickens. Avoidance noted.....and that's OK. Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Avoidance noted.....and that's OK.When is the last time you responded to me directly?? If you really want to talk avoidance!
guyser Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) Avoidance noted.....and that's OK. No avoidance intended nor implied. You quoted me asking shady what part of my post was an ad hom , and if shady knew what ad hom meant (he doestn but that was obvious) You used that post to ask, and used my post as reference "So are you advocating for such attacks as normal discourse ?" So as one should easily see, your post had nothing to do with the quoted part, it was a made up something or other that only you know. Ergo banana and chicken. Hey it makes as much sense as what you posted. Also,I see you skipped over forum rule #2 huh? Well.....let me just say...Avoidance noted.....and that's OK. Edited March 13, 2013 by guyser
cybercoma Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Do you have to start up with ad hominem attacks in this of all threads? What the moderators need to understand, is they ad hominem attacks lead to personal attacks. Of you want to cut down on personal attacks, police the ad hominem ones. Ad hominems are not attacks. They are logical fallacies. If they moderate for logical fallacies, then there's a lot more than just ad hominems that hey would need to be on the lookout for.
Shady Posted March 13, 2013 Author Report Posted March 13, 2013 Ad hominems are not attacks. They are logical fallacies. If they moderate for logical fallacies, then there's a lot more than just ad hominems that hey would need to be on the lookout for. I see your point.
scribblet Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Yes...such direct and indirect attacks should not be permitted. Forum rules clearly require that ideas be debated and challenged without attacking members by name, derisive nicknames, outright slurs, or other personal bias because of differing opinion(s). Well said ! Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
BubberMiley Posted March 13, 2013 Report Posted March 13, 2013 Well said ! I agree. In the US Politics section, I expect we won't have to put up anymore with the remedial debate tactic of trying to shut down people's arguments based on a presumption that they are not US citizens. What a relief that people on this board are finally growing up. "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Charles Anthony Posted March 15, 2013 Report Posted March 15, 2013 They're not personal attacks, but shouldn't as hominem attacks also be against forum rules? Yes. BC2004 is correct. They are against the forum rules. When you encounter them in the forum, report the post and ignore it. We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Smallc Posted March 15, 2013 Report Posted March 15, 2013 There are also other forum rules that are of interest, especially those related to trolling....
Canuckistani Posted March 15, 2013 Report Posted March 15, 2013 so what about people who like to fling terms like racist, anti-semite, etc about? I mean, they probably do see the person they are hurling it at as such, but it's sure a way to derail discussion and a very serious insult.
cybercoma Posted March 15, 2013 Report Posted March 15, 2013 There are also other forum rules that are of interest, especially those related to trolling....We need a definition of trolling from the moderators, since they're quite obviously working on a different one than what most people understand to be true.
waldo Posted March 18, 2013 Report Posted March 18, 2013 We need a definition of trolling from the moderators, since they're quite obviously working on a different one than what most people understand to be true. clearly, yes, a (new) definition of trolling is needed. Trolling has reached a new threshold for abuse. We have one particular MLW member who makes... who has made... it his MLW board mission, year over year, to incessantly express his extreme sensitivities to anyone choosing to utilize United States sourced references, irregardless of forum or topic. It makes no difference whether the sourced reference ties, linkages, relationships, associations, groupings, affiliations, connections, etc., to the United States, are direct, indirect, partial, peripheral, tangential, etc.. The MLW member's expressed sensitivity simply acts, as intended, to purposely disrupt/derail/distract topic discussion.
Shady Posted March 18, 2013 Author Report Posted March 18, 2013 clearly, yes, a (new) definition of trolling is needed. Trolling has reached a new threshold for abuse. We have one particular MLW member who makes... who has made... it his MLW board mission, year over year, to incessantly express his extreme sensitivities to anyone choosing to utilize United States sourced references, irregardless of forum or topic. It makes no difference whether the sourced reference ties, linkages, relationships, associations, groupings, affiliations, connections, etc., to the United States, are direct, indirect, partial, peripheral, tangential, etc.. The MLW member's expressed sensitivity simply acts, as intended, to purposely disrupt/derail/distract topic discussion. Pot meet kettle. Kinda like you describing every source you don't agree with as a "denier" blog.
Recommended Posts