> First an example of personal abuse:
>
> ****
> 1. X is evil
> 2. John affirms X
> 3. Therefore John is a prick.
> *****
>
> Now, statement 3 is rude and probably won't help the discussion. Not
> a good idea. BUT, shag says, it won't poison the wells of discourse,
> because it does not prejudge any respnse John makes. John can reply,
> quite straightforwardly, in two different ways.
>
> (a) John can argue that X is not evil. So the argument can proceed in
> ordinary ways.
> (b) John can agree that X is evil but point out that he does not in
> fact agree with X.
>
> The discourse may still get pretty rough, but it has not been
> seriously frustrated.
This is really what you're proposing? That when abuse and obscenities are hurled at someone in response to an argument they've made, they should politely and patiently endeavor to better explain the merit of their argument? Whatever this is, it's not a normal mode of interpersonal relations. Out there in the human world, when someone is subjected to abuse and obscenities it's considered an act of magnanimity just to permit the relationship to continue at all.
> Now consider the ad himinem argument, and it will be best to give
> several examples.
>
> ******
> 1. John is illiterate.
> 2. John affirms X
> 3. Therefore X is evil.
> ******
>
> *****
> John is a wonderful person.
> John affirms X
> Therefore X is true.
> *****
>
> The topic of the discourse is X: one 'side' is arguing for X, the
> otherside against X. But both examples of ad hominem argument CONCEAL
> X and make it extremely difficult to ever get back to X. They have
> poisoned the wells of discourse. The topic now becomes the personality
> of John, not the truth or falsity of X.
So according to you, the hurling of personal abuse shouldn't distract at all from the substance of the argument; but when someone rebukes an argument based on a some relevant characteristic of the speaker, that's distracting? If it's so easy in the "personal abuse" example to dust yourself off after being called a prick and an asshole and get back to the substance of the argument, why is it so difficult in the "ad hominem" example -- where the substance of the argument has allegedly been "concealed" -- to "de-conceal" it by patiently and politely getting back to the substance of the argument, as you suggest in the personal abuse case?
You're right, ad hominem is not a very productive way of pursuing a discussion. But you know, sometimes people on this list declare explicitly that they're not interested in pursuing a discussion at all. Sometimes they openly announce that they're simply not interested in engaging a certain point, no matter how legitimately the point has been put; or announce that they're simply not paying attention to so-and-so and deleting all their posts; or just abruptly end what heretofore seemed like a polite and constructive exchange of views for no apparent reason. In those instances, the discussion has been preempted already -- so the use of an "ad hominem" doesn't conceal or distract from anything.
SA