|
|
|
|
|
|
by pessimizer
1287 days ago
|
|
|
> Ad hominem is a problem when you are arguing with people who argue in good faith & who can demonstrate unbiased willingness to engage in open discussion, who can hold & respect a broad set of interests when they argue. No, this is changing your standards of logic to support intolerance. You don't get to decide people's motivations against their will, or accuse them of bad faith without an example of the display of that bad faith. |
|
|
I have significant reservations about my statements on when ad-hominem is ok or not. I think there's more than the logic of debate that is important: that I re-affirm. But how & when & where the things beyond the logic happen is still a big question for me. In this case, I think this is pretty core & vital context that everyone is going to have to parse & interpret for themselves.
Running into an article like this online & not knowing the context isn't good. The meat of the top post here, to me, set some basics about who this group is & linked some wikipedia articles. This is obvious public benefit. The top post & I both have additional editorial things to say, that these people are actively detrimental to society for their own good & we should be careful reading this. That's a bit of an attack, but neither of us have said to reject the article or disbelieve it; we have not put to the audience logical conclusions; there is context (who the carrier is), and (designated opinioned) caution/hazard about the meta-message being delivered.