[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
What I do have a problem with in Mr. Childress's and Mr. Willson's most recent responses, is their insistence on muddying the waters of reasoned and respectful discourse with unnecessary and unpleasant ad hominem barbs.

Just so everyone is equally familiar with the term ad hominem I will define it for you:

"An ad hominem argument is a personal attack on an opponent rather than on the opponent's views. It often involves some statement incorporating prejudice along with the assumption that the reader shares the prejudice. Over-reliance on ad hominem arguments makes the writer come across as mean-spirited and desperate."

Source:
Logical Fallacies, adapted from Crossfire: An Argument to Rhetoric and Reader by Gary Goshgarian and Kathleen Krueger, Longman, 1997.

Examples, first from a recent Warren Willson post:

> Moose support hits rock bottom...

> See, Dave, here is the problem with posters who arrive at a
> conclusion, because it suits some ulterior motive

> Dave, perhaps you are emotionally too close to this issue. Perhaps you
> have allowed your feelings for, or against, the personalities involved
> to cloud your judgement.

Who is being personally attacked by the first statement? Is there any prejudice implied in the statement? Or is it simply the expression of personal opinion about the state of the debate?

Has the second statement been taken out of its context to make it LOOK like a personal attack involving some prejudice? Would it have appeared any differently if Mr Hensley had posted the entire quote?

Is the third statement a personal attack or purely legitimate speculation about the possible reasons for a particular point of view? Was Dave actually accused of those things or was there only speculation as to their possible validity?

Mr Hensley likes to use the cut-and-paste technique to selectively quote those parts of his opponent's posts that tend to apparently support his position when taken out of their proper context. Now THAT is definitely an ad hominem argument, but that fact certainly doesn't make it WRONG!

A saying common in the lawyer business is "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, attack your opponent."

Ulterior motives, hidden agendas, oneupmanship, thinly veiled putdowns, etc. It just doesn't seem possible to have an honest disagreement around here. It's an attitude of give no quarter, take no prisoners, it ain't fun until blood's spilt, my way or the highway, and absolute refusal - no way, no how, not gonna happen - to simply agree to disagree.

So, if you are so dead against these devices, Dave, why do you persist in using them? Specifically, why did you use them HERE in this very post?

It is certainly possible to have an honest disagreement around here; just NOT with YOU! The "disagreement" is invariably in evidence, but where you are concerned in my opinion the "honesty" (sic) is almost invariably lacking!

Frankly, fellas, if you're not going to address the substance of my arguments, then I think I like it better in your killfiles.

So, Dave, tell me when was the last time that YOU addressed the substance of MY arguments? I made a couple of long and studied posts on the legality of Moose's actions in the thread that started this whole business, even quoting the OBR on the illegality of his course of action, and you came back with a quote from the General Instructions to Umpires to declare the actions were "legal". I then argued that you can't use a GENERAL instruction to refute a SPECIFIC rule. You ignored that argument. Carl posts here that the very General Instructions you relied on for your proclamation were no longer being followed in professional baseball for several reasons, including their age. Instead of dealing with the issues of that post, you resorted instead to an ad hominem attack on Carl and me.

What can I say, Dave? How about, "Hello Pot, this is Kettle. Over!"

Cheers,