It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I still disagree with anyone who says there's no suitable place for what have become known as "ad hominem" arguments. A man is judged largely by their character and, as a part of that character, by the company they keep. Let's look logically at it using "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'" as an example. If the boy had already set the precident that he was a known liar, then isn't it reasonable and fair to place the onus of proving anything he claims in the future as being true before we can expect anyone to not initially discredit his opinions, saying "The boy is a proven habitual liar." Technically speaking that is an ad hominem attack, but it could also be called a prudent intellectual strategy. It is also one of the philosophies behind a site like ATS banning a user proven of committing a hoax.
Originally posted by TheOneEyedProphet
The thing here is, that those guidelines should be the mantra of everyday human to human interaction.
Originally posted by The All Seeing I
6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.
If we'd all make an asserted effort to fight/play fair and follow some simple rules of respect and common decency, many more of our discussions would deliver more understanding for all involved in the mix and bystanders alike.
Originally posted by Ian McLean
Well, then why is the exact opposite of many of these point practiced, and practiced effectively, by politicians and the mass media?
There's a divide being established: a decreasing middle ground between rational debate, and 'slammin down' your opponent.
And guess what? The easy route of 'gestalt dominance' via rhetorical sound-bite is winning the day, with the public at large.
You can't compete by despising and discarding these tactics. The way to bring reason to the table is to apply reason, logically and from result of 'contrived' rhetoric. Bridge the gap.
Emotional appeal and glazed superficial argument is most often used to conceal a lack of reasonable substance. But, there's nothing that say it can't be used, honestly, to enhance and lead to a genuine, logical argument and point-of-view.
Face it, in many ways, the public is hypnotized. Don't discard the type of rhetoric that actually reaches them, use it for good, to reach, learn, teach, and communicate.
All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be,
I learned in kindergarten.
Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain,
but there in the sandpile at Sunday School.
These are the things that I learned:
Share everything
Play fair
Don't hit people
Put things back where you found them
Clean up your mess
Don't take things that aren't yours
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody
Wash your hands before you eat
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you
Live a balanced life; learn some and think some
and draw and paint and sing and dance
and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon
When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together
Be aware of wonder
Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup ;
The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why,
but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup
They all die
So do we
And then remember the Dick and Jane books and the first word you learned the biggest word of all
LOOK
Everything you need to know is in there somewhere
The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation
Ecology and politics and equality and sane living
Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or
work or your government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm
Think what a better world it would be if we all - the whole world - had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or if all the governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess And it is still true, no matter how old you are... when you go out into the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.
-Robert Fulghum
Originally posted by LordBucket
All of this is well and good...but personally I've found that often when I'm having "arguments" it's not for the benefit of the person I'm arguing with, but rather for the benefit of the audience listening to the discussion.
5) Insult your opponent at every available opportunity. It will disrupt his thinking, and if he tries to defend himself he'll be focusing on that instead of the points he wanted to make. And if he doesn't defend himself, obviously it's because what you're saying is true, and everyone listening will want to believe you because nobody wants to be on the side of a loser who simply sits and takes insults.
If we'd all make an asserted effort to fight/play fair and follow some simple rules of respect and common decency, many more of our discussions would deliver more understanding for all involved in the mix and bystanders alike.
Originally posted by flymetothemoon
People can lie to others, but at the end of the day, in the long term, can they really keep on lying to themselves ?. Can they really enjoy facing themselves in the mirror everyday ? Can they really keep on feeling the joy of winning ?
Originally posted by flymetothemoon
Well i think one must decide how to act by their consciousness. One has to live with themselves rest of life.
counting to ten somtimes helps
[edit on 29-10-2008 by flymetothemoon]
...From experience I have found that most debunkers (D's) will often attack a thread with their very first post. They will be quick to pick up on any grey areas in your thread and often misquote you or having not fully read the whole thread will often interpret content out of context. Often they will come in during key/interesting parts of a thread in order to cause maximum disruption. This is especially so when certain truths start to imerge. Also beware, you will notice they sometimes travel in packs, don't ask me how or why. When this happens be short with your replies to them, remember for the most part they are not there to contribute they're there to refute...