Feedback Request:

Scofflaw

Memnoch wrote:

It's not an ad hominem if it's true is it?

Truth has nothing to do with ad hominems - an ad hominem can be true or false (in which case it's also a lie).

The basic characterisation is that it's about a personal characteristic that has no relation to the debate at hand. The examples given - "don't listen to x's economic principles, she's a witch" - are obvious, but more subtle examples are more common.

So, let's say you point out that a left-wing politician actually lives a very comfortably middle-class life:

If the debate is about left wing principles - then it's an ad hominem, because whether any particular left-wing politician (or all of them) actually lives by the principles they publicly espouse is irrelevant to a discussion of those principles.

If the debate is about the honesty or sincerity of left-wing politicians, then it's entirely relevant, because the discussion is about the people concerned.

Nor does an ad hominem really have to use a person, as such - you can use a party, a country, or whatever in the same irrelevant way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC

Nodin wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Get ye. Bringing personal appearance into it count? Like here?

permabear wrote:

It seems that you don't get to occupy Dame Street unless you have long hair and/or dreadlocks:
sampling of the incoherent rhetoric animating this "protest."

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74858701&postcount=87

permabear wrote:

Richard Boyd Barrett's turn to rant now. Too socialist to wear a suit and tie, apparently.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71073402&postcount=20[/Quote]


Attacking hippies and the left is fine it seems.

Border-Rat

I am being consistently flamed/followed by an English troll on this site. His sympathising moderator is now sending me messages threatening a ban, on my part. Probably something to do with the moderators repeated incapability to refute my geo-political assertions. In response to being personally flamed, I informed the English troll that his military had indeed suffered strategical failure and sexually abused Iraqi's. Manic Moran, the moderator with an ageneda, threatens via a PM a 'ban' for 'unfounded allegations'. Let me provide my source;

Sexual abuse in Iraq by the hands of British soldiers

nesf

Border-Rat wrote: »

I am being consistently flamed/followed by an English troll on this site. His sympathising moderator is now sending me messages threatening a ban, on my part. Probably something to do with the moderators repeated incapability to refute my geo-political assertions. In response to being personally flamed, I informed the English troll that his military had indeed suffered strategical failure and sexually abused Iraqi's. Manic Moran, the moderator with an ageneda, threatens via a PM a 'ban' for 'unfounded allegations'. Let me provide my source;

Sexual abuse in Iraq by the hands of British soldiers

Then report it and the mods will take a look at it. This thread is not for dealing with individual problems but forum wide problems.

Dr Galen

Border rat

I think you may be confused. Manic Moran is not a mod on this forum.

Border-Rat

Dr Galen wrote: »

Border rat

I think you may be confused. Manic Moran is not a mod on this forum.

Nonetheless he is issuing infractions on the basis of political views.

nesf

Border-Rat wrote: »

Nonetheless he is issuing infractions on the basis of political views.

That was on Military, not Politics and has nothing to do with this forum or this thread.

Border-Rat

nesf wrote: »

That was on Military, not Politics and has nothing to do with this forum or this thread.

Yes, you're right. It was in the British military forum. My mistake.

Dr Galen

Following on from posts that would like to see a soccer forum-like system, maybe another system that they use over there might be of benefit.

What would people think of a system whereby if a poster racks up a certain amount of infractions in a set time period, say 6 infractions in 6 months for example, then an automatic ban is out in place by the Mods.

I know the soccer forum Mods use yellow cards as the marker, and tbh I'd be against this, as it takes away the yellow card as a gentle poke for the poster in question.

Could an auto ban system, based upon numbers of infractions received work here?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

a fine system as long as the ad homs against the left are policed as well as they are against the libertarians.

I can't see that happening tbf.

johnnyskeleton

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The point is you can't defeat the ideas by focusing on the person

No but politics isn't just about ideas it's about people. And saying you can't criticise a public representative for what they have done is censorship, there are no two ways about it. It would be a bit like saying that the stated ideal of FF is to look after the interests of the ordinary man without looking at what Bertie, Haughey et al have done.

johnnyskeleton

SupaNova wrote: »

No if you want to come to the conclusion that all footballers are despicable you would have to base it on something every professional footballer has in common, that is playing football for money. Likewise if you want to come to the conclusion that all tea party members are nuts, you would have to show that what they all commonly stand for is nuts. Showing that one member dabbled in witchcraft therefore Tea Party members are nuts is poor, show the following to be nuts:

Wikepedia:
The Tea Party movement is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

You are making a completely skewed point. You are trying to say that because criticism of one member of a party does not mean the whole party is wrong (which no one disputes), that there should therefore be no criticism of the personal lives of individual members of the party.

So in effect you want the forum rules set to prevent comments on the behaviour of individual members of a party because it could reflect poorly on that party. But that is precicely the point of a politics forum, no? To see who the public representatives really are?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No but politics isn't just about ideas it's about people. And saying you can't criticise a public representative for what they have done is censorship, there are no two ways about it. It would be a bit like saying that the stated ideal of FF is to look after the interests of the ordinary man without looking at what Bertie, Haughey et al have done.

No. What's being said is that in a discussion about party policy it would be wrong to attack the individual not the policy while in a thread about a particular party member such attacks would be fair game.

i.e. if we had a thread about Willie O'Dea, reasonable criticisms of his person are fine. If we had a thread about FF economic policy then criticising WOD would be off-topic and unwelcome. Similarly we'd draw a line between debating Gerry Adams and debating SF economic policy and so on.

I think this is reasonable.

raymon

On the subject of ad hominems : I disagree that personal criticisms should be banned .

For example ...... if the internet was around when Charlie gave his " tighten our belts " broadcast and if I had information that Charlie was living like a king on corrupt earnings, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to comment and debate ad hominem.

edanto

Firstly, your understanding of ad hominem is wrong.

Personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations won't ever be allowed around here, but before you reply best to read up on what ad hominem is generally understood to mean.

In your example, boards would be on shaky legal ground if it was first to publish such allegations about Charlie/Bertie etc. If you come across that type of evidence, go to someone like storyful or thestory.ie and get them to do a story on it. Then discuss that story here!

raymon

edanto wrote: »

Firstly, your understanding of ad hominem is wrong.

Personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations won't ever be allowed around here, but before you reply best to read up on what ad hominem is generally understood to mean.

In your example, boards would be on shaky legal ground if it was first to publish such allegations about Charlie/Bertie etc. If you come across that type of evidence, go to someone like storyful or thestory.ie and get them to do a story on it. Then discuss that story here!

I understand exactly what ad hominem means , thanks .

I agree that unsubstantiated allegations are wrong and deserve an infraction

I am talking about properly sourced facts .

nesf

raymon wrote: »

I understand exactly what ad hominem means , thanks .

I agree that unsubstantiated allegations are wrong and deserve an infraction

I am talking about properly sourced facts .

Personal attacks are fine in a thread on the person. They're not welcome in more general discussion.

raymon

nesf wrote: »

Personal attacks are fine in a thread on the person. They're not welcome in more general discussion.

I agree , however to go back to the example of CJH ...... if the topic / thread was "Charles Haughey tells us to tighten our belts " I would feel compelled to post something like , "how can he say that when evidence shows that he is living far beyond his own means ".

I believe the previous actions of a politician and track record are an important part of our political landscape and can often provide valuable insight.

nesf

raymon wrote: »

I agree , however to go back to the example of CJH ...... if the topic / thread was "Charles Haughey tells us to tighten our belts " I would feel compelled to post something like , "how can he say that when evidence shows that he is living far beyond his own means ".

I believe the previous actions of a politician and track record are an important part of our political landscape and can often provide valuable insight.

It depends on how the discussion is framed. Is it a discussion about CJH's integrity in asking for this or is it a discussion about the need for austerity? They are two very different things.

raymon

nesf wrote: »

It depends on how the discussion is framed. Is it a discussion about CJH's integrity in asking for this or is it a discussion about the need for austerity? They are two very different things.

.
Completely agree .... if a poster is posting off topic they should be warned . If they persist to post off topic then they should be banned .

However if an ad hominem post is relevant , accurate , complete and correctly referenced to source , then it should not get any special treatment

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But nobody is proposing that? People are simply saying that the mods should draw a line between legitimate criticism and gratuitous ad hominem attacks or abuse.[/Quote]

But where is the dividing line? Particularly since the example used was a person being accused of witchcraft being ad hominem, but as quite rightly pointed out if it is true it is a serious issue to be decided.

nesf

raymon wrote: »

.
Completely agree .... if a poster is posting off topic they should be warned . If they persist to post off topic then they should be banned .

However if an ad hominem post is relevant , accurate , complete and correctly referenced to source , then it should not get any special treatment

I don't think you quite understand what's meant by ad hominem. It's only ad hominem if you're using the person's character or actions to discredit what they're saying. So if the argument is about austerity as above it's ad hominem to attack CJH's character, but if the argument is about whether CJH has a right to make such a call given his past it's not ad hominem to attack his character.

Edit: What we want to stop is threads being derailed by ad hominem. Threads about substantive issues like austerity or healthcare reform being derailed by personal attacks on the politicians involved and so on. If someone wants to set up an attack thread on a politician on the other hand then that's a different story.

raymon

nesf wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand what's meant by ad hominem. It's only ad hominem if you're using the person's character or actions to discredit what they're saying. So if the argument is about austerity as above it's ad hominem to attack CJH's character, but if the argument is about whether CJH has a right to make such a call given his past it's not ad hominem to attack his character.

Edit: What we want to stop is threads being derailed by ad hominem. Threads about substantive issues like austerity or healthcare reform being derailed by personal attacks on the politicians involved and so on. If someone wants to set up an attack thread on a politician on the other hand then that's a different story.

Ad hominem . Marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made, or in this case a politician

Not a difficult concept at all

I agree again , off topic posts or derailing should be severely dealt with

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But where is the dividing line? Particularly since the example used was a person being accused of witchcraft being ad hominem, but as quite rightly pointed out if it is true it is a serious issue to be decided.

If you went through all parties membership and candidates you'll find a few nuts!

The fact that she is a bit of a nut has no real bearing on the Tea Party though, much as I do think they attract more than their fair share of nuts! Its not that hard to point to contradictions in their policies, pointing at O'Donnell is rather lazy tbh.

The most important point for a politics feedback thread is it doesn't really add much to the quality of discussion in anyway whatsoever. Posters see others doing it and think its ok to do it on other threads. Not having a go at politics.ie but if political personalities are that important to you, you'll feel at home at p.ie.

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And if it is sufficent to discredit the speaker e.g. the issues that arose re: Sean Gallagher, surely that is an appropriate matter for discussion?

johnnyskeleton

K-9 wrote: »

If you went through all parties membership and candidates you'll find a few nuts!

The fact that she is a bit of a nut has no real bearing on the Tea Party though, much as I do think they attract more than their fair share of nuts! Its not that hard to point to contradictions in their policies, pointing at O'Donnell is rather lazy tbh.

Look, it's perfectly simple. This thread is not about the Tea Party. This thread is not about O'Donnell. This thread is about feedback, specifically whether a person should be banned/infracted if they commit what the mods feel is an ad hominem attack on a politican. The issue is whether if something is true about that politician, whether that is an appropriate matter to be discussed in the forum, or whether posters should be banned/infracted for doing so. Simple.

This is the issue. Not the Tea Party. Not some other issue. This is the simple issue.

Now, in that context, it is suggested that such comments on the personal views of politicians or members of a political party have no place in the Politics forum. And it seems that the mods are interested in adopting such a view. But it has long been established that people who run for public office should have their lives scrutinised because there is a public interest in knowing the real views of their politicians.

But if you want to move the forum to a position whereby any questioning of a politician's background is not permitted, then you are stifiling debate. There are simply no two ways about this, no matter how much you try to deflect the issue.

The most important point for a politics feedback thread is it doesn't really add much to the quality of discussion in anyway whatsoever.

Eh? So don't give feedback then.

Posters see others doing it and think its ok to do it on other threads.

Do what exactly, give feedback?

Not having a go at politics.ie but if political personalities are that important to you, you'll feel at home at p.ie.

Again, deflecting from the issue. But if you want to create a forum on boards where questioning the personal motives of politicians is not permitted, you won't get away with it. I'll tell DeV!

johnnyskeleton

nesf wrote: »

No. What's being said is that in a discussion about party policy it would be wrong to attack the individual not the policy while in a thread about a particular party member such attacks would be fair game.

That's not what is being discussed, because off topic posting is already contrary to the charter and so doesn't need any specific feedback. What is being discussed is a rule whereby if a person or party is promoting a particular agenda or viewpoint, that posters should not question their motivation for promoting it.

nesf wrote: »

i.e. if we had a thread about Willie O'Dea, reasonable criticisms of his person are fine. If we had a thread about FF economic policy then criticising WOD would be off-topic and unwelcome. Similarly we'd draw a line between debating Gerry Adams and debating SF economic policy and so on.

I think this is reasonable.

So if the topic is Fianna Fail's economic policy, people should not be permitted to bring up corruption, poor economic planning, incompetence in public office etc and should be left with a narrow debate on the theory behind what they say their policies are (bearing in mind that what a politician says and what a politician does are two different matters entirely)?

No thanks. Maybe we can have one politics forum where that is the rule and another where people can debate matters of public interest freely?

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So if the topic is Fianna Fail's economic policy, people should not be permitted to bring up corruption, poor economic planning, incompetence in public office etc and should be left with a narrow debate on the theory behind what they say their policies are (bearing in mind that what a politician says and what a politician does are two different matters entirely)?

Exactly. The merits or lack thereof of a party's policies have nothing to do with that party's past. Now if you wanted to debate whether a party would actually enact those policies or just fudge it, then the party's past is relevant. Those are two separate and different discussions though.

If you want to go on a ra-ra-ra FF are all corrupt bastards rant in every FF thread you can find a different forum to post in. Ditto for people who bring up SF's terrorist past in every thread. There is a time and a place to bring up a party's past and such, e.g. a "should I vote FF?" or a "I'm not voting FF because..." thread.

Dr Galen

nesf wrote: »

If you want to go on a ra-ra-ra FF are all corrupt bastards rant in every FF thread you can find a different forum to post in. Ditto for people who bring up SF's terrorist past in every thread.

I think that sums things up pretty well nesf.

Some of the nonsense that went on here during the Election and the Presidential Election was awful rubbish. It's practically become impossible to discuss and debate policies from parties such as SF and even FF without the injection of lots of rant rant grrrrr rant rant stuff. That's not what this forum is for tbh.

You mention parties putting forward a particular view or agenda Johnny and how we as poster should be able to criticise that. Of course we should, but you have to remember that there are people that post here who also have an agenda, and aren't always what they appear to be.

But if you want to move the forum to a position whereby any questioning of a politician's background is not permitted, then you are stifiling debate. There are simply no two ways about this, no matter how much you try to deflect the issue.

That's not what this is about at all. What we do have though is a situation, whereby certain posters do not engage in meaningful debate, and all they bring to the party is personal attack/ad hom. They aren't interested in debating the issues, and consistently try to bring threads back to their agenda. There has to be a line in the sand, otherwise we end up back in ranty ranty grrr grr land. If people think that the politics forum is for the ranty ranty grrr grr then, they are mistaken tbh, as nesf says above.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Look, it's perfectly simple. This thread is not about the Tea Party. This thread is not about O'Donnell. This thread is about feedback, specifically whether a person should be banned/infracted if they commit what the mods feel is an ad hominem attack on a politican. The issue is whether if something is true about that politician, whether that is an appropriate matter to be discussed in the forum, or whether posters should be banned/infracted for doing so. Simple.

This is the issue. Not the Tea Party. Not some other issue. This is the simple issue.

Now, in that context, it is suggested that such comments on the personal views of politicians or members of a political party have no place in the Politics forum. And it seems that the mods are interested in adopting such a view. But it has long been established that people who run for public office should have their lives scrutinised because there is a public interest in knowing the real views of their politicians.

But if you want to move the forum to a position whereby any questioning of a politician's background is not permitted, then you are stifiling debate. There are simply no two ways about this, no matter how much you try to deflect the issue.



Eh? So don't give feedback then.



Do what exactly, give feedback?



Again, deflecting from the issue. But if you want to create a forum on boards where questioning the personal motives of politicians is not permitted, you won't get away with it. I'll tell DeV!

I'm really at a total loss at how you took that as some attack on the Tea Party or the other stuff in your post.

Its a perfect example of how personal attacks on politicians can ruin threads. Anyway the mods have put it better than I could.

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Discussing the allegations that arose in relation to Gallagher's fundraising activities for Fianna Fáil is not ad hominem, given how Gallagher had carefully tried to position himself as an independent candidate.

However, there are many posters who, as soon as they see the words "Fianna Fáil," head off into what Dr Galen calls "ranty ranty grrr grr land." They make no attempt to discuss the issues rationally, and their posts are filled with juvenile references to "Mehole Martin" and the like. If the forum really is to be a place for "serious and legitimate political discussion" then the mods have to draw a line with regards to this kind of ranting and juvenile mudslinging.[/Quote]

But ranting is already prohibited, as is derailing a thread, trolling and off topic posts. So that which is put forward as the justification for this new rule is already not allowed. The new rule where ad hominem attacks on politicans will be prohibited go far beyond what you are suggesting.

And to nesf, if you really think that a persons track record has no place in a rational discussion you are very much mistaken.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And to nesf, if you really think that a persons track record has no place in a rational discussion you are very much mistaken.

If a Labour saint and FF cute hoor both propose identical policies what difference does this make in a discussion about the merits of that policy?

johnnyskeleton

nesf wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And to nesf, if you really think that a persons track record has no place in a rational discussion you are very much mistaken.

If a Labour saint and FF cute hoor both propose identical policies what difference does this make in a discussion about the merits of that policy?

You can believe it as genuinely held by the honest person. It makes a world of difference surely?

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You can believe it as genuinely held by the honest person. It makes a world of difference surely?

See you're talking about something completely different. The argument is about the policy, not whether the person proposing the policy will go through it with it. Those are two separate debates and the first will just be horribly derailed if people keep confusing it with the second.