How we can all make the Celestial Forum a better place

[_marg]

For an explanation on :Poisoning the Well

Exposition

To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way. For instance:

"Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water." (Abusive)

"My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." (Circumstantial)

Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer.

However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.

Exposure:
Poisoning the Well is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy since it is not a type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set by the poisoner to tempt the unwary audience into committing an ad hominem fallacy. As with all forms of the ad hominem, one should keep in mind that an argument can and must stand or fall on its own, regardless of who makes it.

[_dartagnan]

marg: [Kevin's] not refuting the arguments he is focusing on attacking

Kevin: Name a single argument by JAK that I have not addressed. Just one. I dare you. I double dare you. When you're done, would you like to see a list of the numerous refutations JAK refuses to address?

marg: I won't be responding to you

Gee, no wonder you won't respond. This is straight out of JAK's "How to avoid refutation" handbook. You cannot back up your claim so you head for the hills. When you catch up with JAK, tell him I said hello.

Until you can show that I have not addressed his arguments, you have no case for ad hominem since it is a tactic that avoids obligation to address the arguments. You interpret every refutation you don't like as an ad hominem because you choose to. It is just a silly game with you that you'll never win.

And you still have not dealt with the uncomfortable fact that ad hominem's are not always bad, and can serve a valid purpose in debate.

[_marg]

marg: [Kevin's] not refuting the arguments he is focusing on attacking

Kevin: Name a single argument by JAK that I have not addressed. Just one. I dare you. I double dare you. When you're done, would you like to see a list of the numerous refutations JAK refuses to address?

Kevin, did you read my post on discussion of ad homs? That first post you posted in this thread consisted of excessive attacks, against myself and JAK. You didn't post an argument, you didn't refute anything, you didn't address anything Shades has said in the opening post regarding whether or not we made mistakes, nor what I said, your whole focus was attack. Please see my post on "poisoning the well" and address that if you disagree.

marg: I won't be responding to you

Gee, no wonder you won't respond. This is straight out of JAK's "How to avoid refutation" handbook. You cannot back up your claim so you head for the hills. When you catch up with JAK, tell him I said hello.

I realize that is your perspective, but there is no reason Kevin to respond to anyone who focuses on attack in lieu of relevancy to any topic being discussed. It is not relevant what your personal opinions are or what you say your observations are. When you enter any thread with the sole focus on attack, your goal is to prevent or hinder discussion whether it be current discussion or future, it is not to facilitate further considerations.

Until you can show that I have not addressed his arguments, you have no case for ad hominem since it is a tactic that avoids obligation to address the arguments. You interpret every refutation you don't like as an ad hominem because you choose to. It is just a silly game with you that you'll never win.

Well as the authors pointed out in the book I quoted, sometime it can be difficult determining if there are mitigating circumstances which make an attack relevant and their suggestion is to look at whether or not the attack is meant to prevent advancing standpoints (Now or in the future) or to cast doubt on standpoints. Of course the purpose of any abusive personal attack is meant to either cast doubt or prevent advancing standpoints on another, it is never meant to further critical discussion.

And you still have not dealt with the uncomfortable fact that ad hominem's are not always bad, and can serve a valid purpose in debate.

You've been relying upon that caveat for some time now, haven't you? Of course, one can always argue that it's just "my observation that others are this or that, or the way they argue is this or that, all of which I don't like or agree with".. but that has nothing to do with the relevancy of topic in any critical discussion.

If you read Chap 15 of that link I gave in that post the authors address this point you make of exceptions. Quite frankly you are abusing it. To begin with, when you focus solely on attacking as you did in your opening post, you aren't even making or addressing any argument presented by others so in that sense it is not a fallacious ad hominem because it is not part of an argument. But if one looks at the attack from a pespective of affecting progression of critical discussion it is a fallacious attack. But let's say someone makes an attack in response to an argument put forward which is is relevant to premises for the argument to conclusion, i.e. pointing out bias, or pointing out lack of expertise, this is what the authors say about it:

"An argumentum ad hominem that is a countermove against the misuse of expertise or authority by the opponent is by some authors considered as a correct use of the argumentum ad hominem.9 However, the discussion is then rather directed toward gaining victory in a dispute than toward resolving the difference of opinion. Since the move, therefore, falls outside the scope of the rules for critical discussion, it is no argumentum ad hominem in the pragma-dialectical sense.10 If the countermove were part of a critical discussion, it would be fallacious and indeed an argumentum ad hominem. That the fallacy is a reaction to another fallacy, an argumentum ad verecundiam, does not make it a correct discussion move: two wrongs do not make a right."

So as I say Kevin in that post where I list ad homs from you, you weren't even presenting any argument, other than 'don't take marg or JAK seriously in any discussion'. You addressed nothing Shades said, or I said, what you were doing is "poisoning the well" you were making pre-emptive ad hominem attacks. That may be your opinion and it may be based on your observations, but it is fallacious ad hominem in the sense it is meant to prevent critical discussion.

by the way, with regards to what you think you are refuting, oftentimes, you are off the mark logically, for example you misrepresent the actual argument JAK has made, and I'm not saying you do it necessarily intentionally in fact I think you don't realize it, but when you combine your ad hominem attacks which you lace your posts with, it just makes it too time consuming and not worthwhile responding to you. When someone laces their posts with personal attacks, it indicates they are into disingenuous gameplaying, rather that focusing on the critical discussion with intent to resolution.

[_marg]

Taking your words from another post shades you write:

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not "de-invite" anyone away from the board for any reason. The solution to any problem always lies in continued discussion, not withdrawal and silence.

If EVERYONE took the advice you just gave, then we wouldn't have much of a message board left, right?]

So I'm wondering Shades when you are going to come out of your "silence and withdrawal", and address my recent post pertaining to what an ad hominem is?

[_Sam Harris]

Why the hell are you still harping on this?

[_marg]

Why the hell are you still harping on this?

Because of people such as yourself who go around harrassing people on this board. Shades has said he's interested in curtailing ad hominems in the Celestial. Harrassments are ad hominal and I'd like to know how he curtails such posts from people such as yourself.

[_Dr. Shades]

So I'm wondering Shades when you are going to come out of your "silence and withdrawal", and address my recent post pertaining to what an ad hominem is?

I already did.

[_marg]

So I'm wondering Shades when you are going to come out of your "silence and withdrawal", and address my recent post pertaining to what an ad hominem is?

I already did.

No you did not respond to my post on this page 6, directed to you specifically. The subject heading is "discussion of ad hominems".


If you look at the ad hominems I took from kevin's first post, which you say aren't ad hominems that they are only Kevin's observations..you will note nothing he says addresses anything you wrote, nor what I wrote dealing with "mistakes". Where does Kevin address "mistakes" we made? Does he acknowledge use of particular words you say he should refrain from?

Basically what Kevin is doing is "poisoning the well" a pre-emptive ad hominem tactical move. They are ad hominem, they are meant to prevent or hinder further discussions, now and in the future. He doesn't address any words, no quotes, nothing other than one attack after another directed "towards the person". It is irrelevant whether they are his observations, that doesn't preclude them from being ad homs.

And by the way, where have you given any indication in any of your posts that you understand ad hominems? And what instruction have you given mods to use in order to curtail ad homs, if you in fact do want them curtailed?

1)First of all, I see marg's eternal need to bicker is still obvious.

2) This back and forth has been boring, but it amazes me how much time and effort marg spends trying to squabble with anyone who will listen, usually in the cause of defending her internet man, JAK.


3)JAK has done enough to make sure he'll never ever speak with credibility on this forum.

4)I can't think of anyone aside from marg, who thinks he is what he says he is.

5)Pointing out a poster's lack of credibility and history as a derailer is not ad hominem. It is an effort to keep order when ranting goobers try to pollute every thread with previously refuted cut and paste jobs.

6) Marg still doesn't know what ad hominem term means. She interprets any criticism as ad hominem.

7) The simple fact is, JAK gets what he asks for because he insists on jumping into threads and derailing with his standard sermon about how religion is dangerous, the Bible is untrustworthy, etc.

8) JAK rarely knows what he is talking about, he relies on google as his authority, he uses any website that suits his purposes (even Muslim ones!), he ignores detailed refutations while offering subterfuge and filibustering by pumping out long-winded "responses" to any observer who makes a single comment. And when he has been shown to know nothing of what he speaks, he disappears for a week, only to return with the same nonsense as if it was never refuted to begin with. It is a never ending cycle with people like these.

10) I will point all of these out as long as JAK continues to spread ignorance and as long as it interests me.

[_Sam Harris]

Why the hell are you still harping on this?

Because of people such as yourself who go around harrassing people on this board. Shades has said he's interested in curtailing ad hominems in the Celestial. Harrassments are ad hominal and I'd like to know how he curtails such posts from people such as yourself.

Marg, you once again do not know, or choose not to know the definition of an ad hominem. You want worship, which no one here will give you. You consider that to be an attack. I do attack you, but not in Celestial, where it is not allowed. This place should not be a country club, but in some senses it is given the current trend of thought.

To really be harassing you, I'd be following you all over the board. It is the fact that this admonition was given to me that you went off AGAIN. So who is following whom? I just saw that you are still trailing this thread on, so I commented.

My apologies, Your Grace.

[_marg]

Why the hell are you still harping on this?

Because of people such as yourself who go around harrassing people on this board. Shades has said he's interested in curtailing ad hominems in the Celestial. Harrassments are ad hominal and I'd like to know how he curtails such posts from people such as yourself.

Marg, you once again do not know, or choose not to know the definition of an ad hominem.

If you want to interject with substance on topic Sam, then explain what it is I don't understand about ad homs. Warrant the point you make. I wrote a post called "discussion of ad homs" which you are free to use as evidence for my lack of understanding and so you can point out my errors and use whatever references you wish to warrant your counter.

You want worship, which no one here will give you. You consider that to be an attack.

I consider ad homs essentially to be negative non relevant comments directed to the person, meant to persuade a reader to ignore the topic or dismiss it, based on an acceptance of the attack. Sometimes they are simply adjectives, verbs or adverbs laced throughout posts, sometimes they are complete posts with the sole focus being an attack.

So for example in this case taking your current post, it appears, you don't want to discuss ad homs and what they are. You don't want to explain how they are curtailed in the Celestial and why I am wrong to think they aren't. You want this topic to be dismissed with something entirely irrelevant...your opinion of me that I want to be "worshipped". Your opinion is directed towards me, it is not relevant to the premises of "what an ad homs is and how they are curtialed in the Celestial". It is meant to be derogatory, it is ad hominal. Once in a while I'm fine with this sort of argumentation, but when it is excessive within a thread it is not fair to others, readers and participants alike but particularly the person the ad homs are directed to. These sorts of attacks can also be for future discussions, in other words to poison the well.

I do attack you, but not in Celestial, where it is not allowed. This place should not be a country club, but in some senses it is given the current trend of thought.

First of all, one can see one's attitude against another in other areas of the board. So if you post elsewhere attacks on an individual, which shows you are motivated to attack unprovoked on a consistent basis that does affect what you write in the Celestial in which one can easily see that when an attack is made , it is motivated by a carry-over previously demonstrated attitude and behavior.

In the past, you rarely went into the Celestial. In a post somewhere I believe in the off-topic section, after you had written an attack, I wrote in response that you are the sort of person as to why the Celestial would benefit by having ad homs curtailed. At that point in time though, threads were being moved out of Celestial to Terrestial when a mod didn't like the tone or feel of a thread. My point was that moving a thread allowed someone such as yourself to use that opportunity to intensify attacks.

I didn't say you wrote ad homs in the Celestial on an excessive basis. You did set up the thread on Ad Hom with a focus on attacking rather than on actually discussing ad homs. That's the only thread I remember of you attacking in the Celestial previously. You are the sort of person if you thought attacks were allowed would excessively attack purposefully, as you've demonstrated that attitude and behavior in the other forum areas. Some people such as yourself, on occasion will focus on particular individual or individuals to attack, with little interest in topic. There aren't many people who do so, but when they do it becomes a disingenuous time wasting game to engage them seriously. There are others who only within a particular topic thread will focus on attack in lieu of topic. Keene says this board has no rules, Shades says it does, ad homs are curtailed in the Celestial. So which is it? And if they are curtailed then how are they identified, and how are they handled in order to curtail them? We already know the previous way of handling by moving to levels which allowed them, does nothing to effectively curtail.

To really be harassing you, I'd be following you all over the board. It is the fact that this admonition was given to me that you went off AGAIN. So who is following whom?

I answered your question of why I'm still addressing this. Note, you asked me in a derogatory ad hominal manner with the use of the word "harping".

As to who is following whom, since you brought it up, it appears you are following me to harrass. You have made no points as to what an ad hom is, nor how they are curtailed in the Celestial. You've thrown in derogatory words directed to me, irrelevant to a topic.

I'm not sure why your comment "To really be harassing you, I'd be following you all over the board" is that supposed to mean that if you don't follow me to the Celestial to harass, therefore you aren't really harassing me? Are those Sam Harris' rules? I do look upon your 2 current posts in this thread to be meant for harassment purposes. I don't get the sense that you are interested in discussing the topic.

Do you notice that by replying to you, I'm having to deal with irrelevant stuff. Very time wasting for me and any reader. Your post gets us no closer to understanding what rules are used by Shades to curtail ad homs. Your post tends to be about YOU with some attacks directed to me.

I just saw that you are still trailing this thread on, so I commented.

Sam, you did more than just comment. Your comment was done in a derogatory manner, it was meant as an attack. And if you aren't interested in the current discussion on ad homs which I'd like to get resolved then don't read the thread. If you are interested then add something on topic to it.

My apologies, Your Grace.

Apologies for what? And the "your grace" is ad hominal, it is meant to be sarcastic and derogatory.