Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Foxfyre]

I don't have a problem with protests against a business engaged in evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral practices that are harming people who have no choice in the matter and no realistic way to protect or defend themselves. But that is a separate debate and discussion for another thread.

This thread is re tolerance of what people think and believe when they are requiring nobody else to agree with them and/or their right NOT to act in matters/events/activities they believe to be immoral, wrong, or for whatever reason.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else rather than commenting on or rebutting what the person has argued. It is usually intended to undermine a person by turning the attention to his/her faults, flaws, or whatever and draw attention away from the person's actual argument.

 

[Ravi]

So the OP is saying that no one should have the right to put PP out of business just because of what was taken out of context in those anti-abortion those videos, right?

I don't have a problem with protests against a business engaged in evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral practices that are harming people who have no choice in the matter and no realistic way to protect or defend themselves. But that is a separate debate and discussion for another thread.

This thread is re tolerance of what people think and believe when they are requiring nobody else to agree with them and/or their right NOT to act in matters/events/activities they believe to be immoral, wrong, or for whatever reason.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself. Post #858 for instance is an excellent example of a post that is almost all ad hominem and expressly not allowed in this thread.

I stated what I understood from your Nestle example. How is that an ad hom?

 

[Ravi]

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else.

Are you saying you only want answers that confirm your opinion?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else.

Yes, you are right that the OP does get to invent whatever definitions she wants per the OP "rules" but for the sake of clarity this is how the dictionary defines ad hom.

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special
interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.​

Ravi did none of the above.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion, if people are allowed to organize and picket, boycott, threaten a business's customers, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and otherwise attempt to destroy that business owner's business and/or livelihood for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion somebody didn't like, then none of us have any liberty at all. Anybody can put anybody out of business for any reason they want at any time they want.

I can find no argument of any kind for how that would be okay.

But again, if a business displeases me, I have every right to say so, to tell everybody I know, and to fill out a rating for that business expressing exactly how I feel about the service or treatment I received so long as I do not represent that untruthfully. I have every right to sue if I was materially or physically harmed by the business's failure to provide a product or service I paid for.

But I should not have a right to organize a mob to attack and destroy that business just because somebody made me mad.

So the OP is saying that no one should have the right to put PP out of business just because of what was taken out of context in those anti-abortion those videos, right?

I don't have a problem with protests against a business engaged in evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral practices that are harming people who have no choice in the matter and no realistic way to protect or defend themselves. But that is a separate debate and discussion for another thread.

This thread is re tolerance of what people think and believe when they are requiring nobody else to agree with them and/or their right NOT to act in matters/events/activities they believe to be immoral, wrong, or for whatever reason.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

Where is the ad hom? Show me where I am wrong.

Read your post in its entirety and my definition of ad hominem and it should be quite clear.

 

[Carla_Danger]

So the OP is saying that no one should have the right to put PP out of business just because of what was taken out of context in those anti-abortion those videos, right?

I don't have a problem with protests against a business engaged in evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral practices that are harming people who have no choice in the matter and no realistic way to protect or defend themselves. But that is a separate debate and discussion for another thread.

This thread is re tolerance of what people think and believe when they are requiring nobody else to agree with them and/or their right NOT to act in matters/events/activities they believe to be immoral, wrong, or for whatever reason.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

Where is the ad hom? Show me where I am wrong.

Read your post in its entirety and my definition of ad hominem and it should be quite clear.

I didn't see any ad hominem in Ravi's post.

 

[Foxfyre]

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else.

Yes, you are right that the OP does get to invent whatever definitions she wants per the OP "rules" but for the sake of clarity this is how the dictionary defines ad hom.

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special
interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.​

Ravi did none of the above.

I will define the term. I have defined the term. if you don't like my definition and that's a deal breaker for you I invite you to please find some other thread to participate in because further discussion of ad hominem is not the topic of this thread.

To tell any member 'you apparently, want your views to be the law of the land' when I have said nothing like that is ad hominem and is expressly disallowed in the rules for this thread.

 

[Carla_Danger]

So what is the difference between my choice to not provide services/products for a same sex wedding and my choice not to provide services/products for an anti-gay marriage rally so long as I do not interfere with that wedding or that rally? On what principle is one unacceptable 'discrimination' and the other is not?

Because, in my view - the wedding is discrimminating against the the customers as a class. A rally, is attended by all classes of people - what's being objected to is the message of the rally. The message of a wedding - any wedding is simple - marriage. The differences are soley gender orientation.

Not at all. I could be as equally discriminating opposing a marriage of a heterosexual same sex couple who wanted to get married for financial reasons or whatever or a polygamous marriage or getting married to your dog or horse or whatever or people lobbying to be able to marry a child or their sister or any other activity regarding marriage that I might believe to be absurd or wrong.

Probably most people who have aesthetic or principled beliefs opposing same sex marriage are coming from religious values (Muslim, Jewish, Christian or any of several other religions.) Such values also put such people into a particular 'class' and such people should be allowed their beliefs and convictions and not be required to set them aside for the benefit of another group so long as they do not interfere with the rights of that other group.

Choosing to not be a part of a wedding - ANYBODY'S WEDDING - violates nobody's rights whatsoever. It does not interfere or impede the other in any way. It is simply a choice not to participate. And especially when somebody is willing to provide any other products or services for a gay person, and it is only the same-sex wedding that is objected to, it is absurd to accuse a person of discriminating against gays because the person chooses not to do a same-sex wedding that he believes to be wrong.

Foxfyre:

First, you acknowledge that you have no problem with anti-discrimination laws. As a condition to entering the marketplace (stream of commerce), you have no objection to laws that prohibit discrimination against customers in public accommodations based on who or what they are. For instance, you would have no problem with a law that forbids discrimination against customers on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

The underlying government policy that justifies anti-discrimination laws is protection of the LIBERTY interests of persons who have historically been treated unfairly or as "second-class" citizens. More specifically, anti-discrimination laws "promote the equal rights of people within certain specified classes by protecting them against discriminatory treatment." Anti-discrimination laws prohibit businesses open to the public (public accommodations) from making any distinction in the services they offer to customers on the basis of protected classifications. A business may not offer a "full menu" of goods and services to one class of customers and offer only a "limited menu" to protected classes of persons.

Second, I don't agree with your assertion that "to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays." If your business offers a full menu of services (e.g., baking a wedding cake or photographing ceremonies, etc.) to heterosexual couples, but offer only a limited menu of services to same-sex couples, you ARE discriminating against same-sex couples based on who or what they are.

Third, the examples you give to justify your stance don't apply because you are making comparisons between classes of persons who are NOT protected and those who ARE protected. You may refuse to cater an anti-gay rally because anti-gay persons are not within a protected class of persons.

If a baker has entered the stream of commerce and does not want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, a protected class of persons, then the baker must take wedding cakes off its menu of goods/services that it provides in the arena of public accommodations. There are many choices that a business person may make, but choosing to discriminate against protected classes of persons is not a choice that can be make with impunity.

Please refer to my Post #832 which I believe addresses the point you are making here. If it does not cover everything let me know and I'll try to clarify.

But remember that existing law is off limits as an argument for purposes of this discussion only. So who is and is not a 'protected class' under existing law is irrelevant. The argument should focus on what the law should be and why the law should be that and not what the existing law is.

No. Your Post#832 does not address the three points I made above. You have created a hypothetical world. In that world, you claim that you have no objection to the enactment of anti-discrimination laws that a business must follow. Nevertheless, you do not acknowledge the result of such laws, i.e., the creation of "protected classes" of persons.

In Foxfyre's opinion, providing a full menu of goods and services to some customers and a limited menu to "protected classes" of persons is not discrimination. I disagree with Foxfyre's opinion. Providing a limited menu of goods and services to protected classes of persons is discrimination.

In Foxfyre's hypothetical world, she is entitled to act upon her intolerance (and deprive her victims of peace) and all other people must tolerate her intolerance (and refrain from acting) and allow her to "live in peace". In her opinion, intolerance of her intolerance through action is shoving that evil "political correctness" down her throat. She is entitled to freedom of speech, but others are not. If other people organize to criticize her intolerance or boycott her business, she wants their criticism/boycott to be unlawful and punished.

In Foxfyre's make-believe world, the only opinion that matters is Foxfyre's opinion. Because things that are important to me (e.g., the rule of law, fairness, common sense, logic, reason) do not exist in this make-believe world, I have nothing more to offer this discussion. Thus, I am exiting this thread. Have a nice day.

I agree with this post. It doesn't do much for a debate when you have to make up pretend laws, for a pretend world, with pretend definitions, to justify intolerance.

 

[Foxfyre]

The OP has reserved the right to define any definitions in dispute for purposes of this discussion only. (There are many dictionary and encyclopedia definitions and discussions re all these terms and it is impractical to list them all.)

So for purposes of this discussion: Already posted DEFINITIONS that will apply within the context of this discussion:

PARTICIPATION: Being present at, having one's name associated with, and/or contributing time, talent, inventory, skills.

CONTRIBUTION:Giving of one's name, time, talent, labor and/or anything material to a person, group, or activity.

Merriam Webster defines participation as: :to be involved with others in doing something : to take part in an activity or event with others

The Free Dictionary defines contribution as:Noun1.contribution- the part played by a person in bringing about a result; "I am proud of my contribution in advancing the project"; "they all did their share of the work"

AD HOMINEM: any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else rather than commenting on or rebutting what the person has argued. It is usually intended to undermine a person by turning the attention to his/her faults, flaws, or whatever and draw attention away from the person's actual argument.

What the member intends, means, wants, hopes for, believes, aspires to, etc. etc. etc. is therefore off limits in this discussion or any other personal reference to the member. Focus on the argument actually made and leave personal references about the member out of it, and there will be no danger of violating this rule.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because, in my view - the wedding is discrimminating against the the customers as a class. A rally, is attended by all classes of people - what's being objected to is the message of the rally. The message of a wedding - any wedding is simple - marriage. The differences are soley gender orientation.

Not at all. I could be as equally discriminating opposing a marriage of a heterosexual same sex couple who wanted to get married for financial reasons or whatever or a polygamous marriage or getting married to your dog or horse or whatever or people lobbying to be able to marry a child or their sister or any other activity regarding marriage that I might believe to be absurd or wrong.

Probably most people who have aesthetic or principled beliefs opposing same sex marriage are coming from religious values (Muslim, Jewish, Christian or any of several other religions.) Such values also put such people into a particular 'class' and such people should be allowed their beliefs and convictions and not be required to set them aside for the benefit of another group so long as they do not interfere with the rights of that other group.

Choosing to not be a part of a wedding - ANYBODY'S WEDDING - violates nobody's rights whatsoever. It does not interfere or impede the other in any way. It is simply a choice not to participate. And especially when somebody is willing to provide any other products or services for a gay person, and it is only the same-sex wedding that is objected to, it is absurd to accuse a person of discriminating against gays because the person chooses not to do a same-sex wedding that he believes to be wrong.

Foxfyre:

First, you acknowledge that you have no problem with anti-discrimination laws. As a condition to entering the marketplace (stream of commerce), you have no objection to laws that prohibit discrimination against customers in public accommodations based on who or what they are. For instance, you would have no problem with a law that forbids discrimination against customers on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

The underlying government policy that justifies anti-discrimination laws is protection of the LIBERTY interests of persons who have historically been treated unfairly or as "second-class" citizens. More specifically, anti-discrimination laws "promote the equal rights of people within certain specified classes by protecting them against discriminatory treatment." Anti-discrimination laws prohibit businesses open to the public (public accommodations) from making any distinction in the services they offer to customers on the basis of protected classifications. A business may not offer a "full menu" of goods and services to one class of customers and offer only a "limited menu" to protected classes of persons.

Second, I don't agree with your assertion that "to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays." If your business offers a full menu of services (e.g., baking a wedding cake or photographing ceremonies, etc.) to heterosexual couples, but offer only a limited menu of services to same-sex couples, you ARE discriminating against same-sex couples based on who or what they are.

Third, the examples you give to justify your stance don't apply because you are making comparisons between classes of persons who are NOT protected and those who ARE protected. You may refuse to cater an anti-gay rally because anti-gay persons are not within a protected class of persons.

If a baker has entered the stream of commerce and does not want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, a protected class of persons, then the baker must take wedding cakes off its menu of goods/services that it provides in the arena of public accommodations. There are many choices that a business person may make, but choosing to discriminate against protected classes of persons is not a choice that can be make with impunity.

Please refer to my Post #832 which I believe addresses the point you are making here. If it does not cover everything let me know and I'll try to clarify.

But remember that existing law is off limits as an argument for purposes of this discussion only. So who is and is not a 'protected class' under existing law is irrelevant. The argument should focus on what the law should be and why the law should be that and not what the existing law is.

No. Your Post#832 does not address the three points I made above. You have created a hypothetical world. In that world, you claim that you have no objection to the enactment of anti-discrimination laws that a business must follow. Nevertheless, you do not acknowledge the result of such laws, i.e., the creation of "protected classes" of persons.

In Foxfyre's opinion, providing a full menu of goods and services to some customers and a limited menu to "protected classes" of persons is not discrimination. I disagree with Foxfyre's opinion. Providing a limited menu of goods and services to protected classes of persons is discrimination.

In Foxfyre's hypothetical world, she is entitled to act upon her intolerance (and deprive her victims of peace) and all other people must tolerate her intolerance (and refrain from acting) and allow her to "live in peace". In her opinion, intolerance of her intolerance through action is shoving that evil "political correctness" down her throat. She is entitled to freedom of speech, but others are not. If other people organize to criticize her intolerance or boycott her business, she wants their criticism/boycott to be unlawful and punished.

In Foxfyre's make-believe world, the only opinion that matters is Foxfyre's opinion. Because things that are important to me (e.g., the rule of law, fairness, common sense, logic, reason) do not exist in this make-believe world, I have nothing more to offer this discussion. Thus, I am exiting this thread. Have a nice day.

I agree with this post. It doesn't do much for a debate when you have to make up pretend laws, for a pretend world, with pretend definitions, to justify intolerance.

And isn't it wonderful that it is a free world? Anybody can agree to disagree with anything anybody says here and nobody has to agree with anything at all that anybody says. And if the discussion isn't going the way somebody likes and enjoys, there are hundreds and hundreds of other threads out there to participate in. Probably at least a few of those will satisfy anybody's tastes.

That, by the way, is a pretty good illustration of tolerance.

But this thread has a specific topic and the OP has every right to expect that topic to be discussed and for the rules for this thread to be respected. Those who don't want to do that are certainly not required to do so, but different topics must be discussed elsewhere.

Thanks to everybody for understanding.

And now can we please return to the thread topic?

 

[Derideo_Te]

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else.

Yes, you are right that the OP does get to invent whatever definitions she wants per the OP "rules" but for the sake of clarity this is how the dictionary defines ad hom.

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special
interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.​

Ravi did none of the above.

I will define the term. I have defined the term. if you don't like my definition and that's a deal breaker for you I invite you to please find some other thread to participate in because further discussion of ad hominem is not the topic of this thread.

To tell any member 'you apparently, want your views to be the law of the land' is ad hominem and is expressly disallowed in the rules for this thread.

Again, purely for the sake of clarification, which of the OP's two latest definitions of ad hom is now the official one?

#859

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

#862

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else​

Only asking because under those definitions above this post, and every other post, that refers to either the OP, or any other poster, might be classified as "ad hom" if it refers to the OP, or any other poster.

 

[Ravi]

So the OP is saying that no one should have the right to put PP out of business just because of what was taken out of context in those anti-abortion those videos, right?

I don't have a problem with protests against a business engaged in evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral practices that are harming people who have no choice in the matter and no realistic way to protect or defend themselves. But that is a separate debate and discussion for another thread.

This thread is re tolerance of what people think and believe when they are requiring nobody else to agree with them and/or their right NOT to act in matters/events/activities they believe to be immoral, wrong, or for whatever reason.

Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

Where is the ad hom? Show me where I am wrong.

Read your post in its entirety and my definition of ad hominem and it should be quite clear.

I did and I don't see it. Please be specific.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else.

Yes, you are right that the OP does get to invent whatever definitions she wants per the OP "rules" but for the sake of clarity this is how the dictionary defines ad hom.

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special
interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.​

Ravi did none of the above.

I will define the term. I have defined the term. if you don't like my definition and that's a deal breaker for you I invite you to please find some other thread to participate in because further discussion of ad hominem is not the topic of this thread.

To tell any member 'you apparently, want your views to be the law of the land' is ad hominem and is expressly disallowed in the rules for this thread.

Again, purely for the sake of clarification, which of the OP's two latest definitions of ad hom is now the official one?

#589

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

#862

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else​

Only asking because under those definitions above this post, and every other post, that refers to either the OP, or any other poster, might be classified as "ad hom" if it refers to the OP, or any other poster.

Nope. I don't use ad hominem in my posts by either of the same definitions above or the 'official' one I just posted. Many members can make an intelligent, coherent argument without using any ad hominem whatsoever. I have been strongly disagreeing with Nosmo and Coyote and FlacalTennessee and dblack, for instance, and there has been absolutely no ad hominem included in anybody's argument in any of those exchanges. And I have to say I have a great deal of respect for that.

No argument should refer to a personal characteristic of the person who wrote the OP ever unless the topic is about the person who wrote the OP. The person who wrote the OP is irrelevant to the topic and to make him or her or anybody else the topic when he/she did not intend to be the topic is ad hominem or at least is a derailment of the thread. And in this thread that is against the rules.

Those who have a problem with me or my thread topic or my rules or my definitions are free to go elsewhere and make whatever threads they want complaining about me or anybody else if that sort of thing floats their boats. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some out there already. I suggest that it would be a good thing for those who don't like this topic or my rules to take advantage of that.

For now I would appreciate those with an interest in the topic being allowed to discuss it in peace. That would be a good illustration of tolerance too.

 

[Ravi]

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else.

Yes, you are right that the OP does get to invent whatever definitions she wants per the OP "rules" but for the sake of clarity this is how the dictionary defines ad hom.

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special
interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.​

Ravi did none of the above.

I will define the term. I have defined the term. if you don't like my definition and that's a deal breaker for you I invite you to please find some other thread to participate in because further discussion of ad hominem is not the topic of this thread.

To tell any member 'you apparently, want your views to be the law of the land' when I have said nothing like that is ad hominem and is expressly disallowed in the rules for this thread.

But you DO, FF. you believe your protest against Nestle is acceptable because you believe they are causing harm. Yes or no?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else.

Yes, you are right that the OP does get to invent whatever definitions she wants per the OP "rules" but for the sake of clarity this is how the dictionary defines ad hom.

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special
interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.​

Ravi did none of the above.

I will define the term. I have defined the term. if you don't like my definition and that's a deal breaker for you I invite you to please find some other thread to participate in because further discussion of ad hominem is not the topic of this thread.

To tell any member 'you apparently, want your views to be the law of the land' when I have said nothing like that is ad hominem and is expressly disallowed in the rules for this thread.

But you DO, FF. you believe your protest against Nestle is acceptable because you believe they are causing harm. Yes or no?

The topic is not Nestle or what I want to be the law of the land Ravi. Either discuss the thread topic or don't post. Please.

 

[dblack]

Jeez Foxy. At the end of the day, it's a discussion board. I know how frustrating it is when trolls drop into a thread with the obvious purpose of shutting down the conversation. But there's only so much we can do to combat that. At some point, you gotta let people have their say. It's not always easy to ignore the jackasses, but it's not impossible.

 

[candycorn]

A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..

How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?

It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else.

Are you saying you only want answers that confirm your opinion?

Precisely.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jeez Foxy. At the end of the day, it's a discussion board. I know how frustrating it is when trolls drop into a thread with the obvious purpose of shutting down the conversation. But there's only so much we can do to combat that. At some point, you gotta let people have their say. It's not always easy to ignore the jackasses, but it's not impossible.

dblack the whole concept of the SDZ was to give the OP some leeway to control the thread and stop the trolls and derailers and jackasses who do their damndest to destroy a topic or discussion they don't like. I am more than willing to give anybody their say--look at the really great give and take that has happened with Nosmoking and Coyote and Flacal and you when we are able to stay on topic. That is exactly what I hoped for. But alas some are determined to not allow such quality discussion without interruption and will not allow the thread to stay on topic.

So oh well. I give up. They can glad hand each other and celebrate and congratulate each other that they were able to do what they intended to do. I will ask that the thread be closed. Thanks so much to you and all those who respected the concept and the rules and gave us some excellent arguments. I appreciate that more than you probably know. I hope we can do more of that at another time. Any who want to continue discussing the topic can start another thread.

Good night everybody.

 

[Ravi]

No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.

When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.

Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.

I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else.

Yes, you are right that the OP does get to invent whatever definitions she wants per the OP "rules" but for the sake of clarity this is how the dictionary defines ad hom.

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special
interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.​

Ravi did none of the above.

I will define the term. I have defined the term. if you don't like my definition and that's a deal breaker for you I invite you to please find some other thread to participate in because further discussion of ad hominem is not the topic of this thread.

To tell any member 'you apparently, want your views to be the law of the land' when I have said nothing like that is ad hominem and is expressly disallowed in the rules for this thread.

But you DO, FF. you believe your protest against Nestle is acceptable because you believe they are causing harm. Yes or no?

The topic is not Nestle or what I want to be the law of the land Ravi. Either discuss the thread topic or don't post. Please.

You gave your protests of Nestle as an acceptable protest.