[lbo-talk] autumn of the communes

[Miles Jackson]

On 10/31/2011 9:46 AM, SA wrote:
>
> So according to you [CC], 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?

Geez, I can't believe I'm with SA here.  In my interactions with people, 
personal abuse frequently derails conversations and blocks thoughtful 
discussion, just as ad hominem arguments and other logical fallacies 
do.  Why the former is acceptable and the latter is anathema to CC makes 
no sense to me.

Miles