What is personal

[lsbskins1]

If someone takes a stance on an issue, and part of that stance involves what is a moral choice, and you call the stance or choice they make immoral (or bad), does that make your response a personal attack? Is it always out of bounds to make value judgements?

[Nono]

Well you're certainly questioning their morality, I guess. Perhaps the most diplomatic approach is to ask them whether they've considered all the moral issues involved...

[bishop]

nothing wrong with making value judgements - but the way that you go about doing it is where the criticism can be a personal attack.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: bishop nothing wrong with making value judgements - but the way that you go about doing it is where the criticism can be a personal attack.

Ok. Let's take this situation. Someone is an athelete. They participate in a sport that bans certain classes of drugs. They ban them because they give an unnatural advantage. The governing body puts out a list of banned substances. The athelete meets with a doctor, who developes a variant of one of these drugs. It is not listed on the banned substances list, but gives the same advantage. The athelete uses the variant and wins the world championship of his or her sport. It comes out he uses this substance. I write that said athelete is a cheater and should be ashamed of his or her self. Is that a personal attack?

[bishop]

calling the athelete a cheater is an accusation - slightly different than a personal attack (i realize i'm navigating through nuances now, but it needs to be done).. but, saying that he/she should be ashamed is the personal attack. there are various ways you can say the same thing though.. saying that he/she should be ashamed is much more tame than calling the athelete a fucking scumbag.

that's why i previously said that it's the way you go about doing it that makes the important difference.. there's a line where fair criticism becomes a personal attack. and in the example you gave, i think it was tame enough to be considered criticism, not a personal attack.

[CoffeeSaint]

Does the athlete get to say if the criticism is a personal attack, or is there an objective standard that can be applied? (Not asking for that standard to be defined, just wondering if there is one)

[Jack]

This is a common error the "news" establishment makes almost daily lately.
Say, in your example, the news reports, "Athlete abuses drug policy, wins contest improperly". They've just added a value judgement to what should have been a factual report. This used to be called "yellow journalism".
Instead, they should report the facts as they know them or can discover them, and let their readers make their own value judgements.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Its not a personal attack since it is a moral issue, usually something agreed on by culture.

[lsbskins1]

Ok. Lets say you are talking about adoption with someone, and they say "There should be no government child welfare agencies. If someone wants to beat their children, as long as the child does not suffer fractures or long-term injuries, it should be a private matter and no child should be taken from a home unless they are in immediate danger of death or permanent injury." Could I say, "That's just cruel and uncaring. If you really think that should be policy, you are, in my opinion, devoid of ethical understanding." Would that be wrong?

[Morgan_Freeman]

What's wrong with personal attacks? If it's something that has to do with your person (using drugs), and you're making an attack (they should be ashamed), then it's a personal attack. So what?

[phoenix_fire]

I think that a lot can be said about the spirit in which something is said. If I say that you are doing something wrong in a malicious and slanderous manner (viz. I want to defame or otherwise hurt you), then it is somewhat different than if I objectively state that you are guilty of something. It depends on what my intent is.

[Jack]

you are, in my opinion, devoid of ethical understanding." Would that be wrong?

Right or wrong, is it really necessary? Does it make your position stronger? Is it relevant to the debate?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Isherwood Right or wrong, is it really necessary? Does it make your position stronger? Is it relevant to the debate?

See, we are getting closer to what I consider relevant. I may make myself feel better, calling a "spade a spade", but I suppose that it is true that it rarely changes a mind. If I do a proper cost:benefit analysis, I have to admit, it causes more trouble than it's worth. So, it seems I have, with the help of my friends here, taught myself what I really already knew: It's productive to call a lie a lie, but counter-productive to call anyone a liar. Thanks. I was probably getting a little too self rightious and needed to check myself.

Sorry for being a bit of a shit in other threads.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Isherwood you are, in my opinion, devoid of ethical understanding." Would that be wrong? Right or wrong, is it really necessary? Does it make your position stronger? Is it relevant to the debate?

I agree with Isherwood here. To call someone "devoid of ethical understanding", or any such similar term, may make one feel better about himself, but it does not constitute any sort of logical or factual proof against his opponent's argument(s). In other words, self-satisfaction has no place in debate. Debate is necessarily about logic and facts, not emotions.

- Rob

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Ok. Lets say you are talking about adoption with someone, and they say "There should be no government child welfare agencies. If someone wants to beat their children, as long as the child does not suffer fractures or long-term injuries, it should be a private matter and no child should be taken from a home unless they are in immediate danger of death or permanent injury." Could I say, "That's just cruel and uncaring. If you really think that should be policy, you are, in my opinion, devoid of ethical understanding." Would that be wrong?

Isbskins1 as you offer the above as an opinion to the person; then in my opinion they should not be offended or consider it a personal attack.

The age of PC and libel makes consideration of others a pocket value, however to take offence requires a person to put a fence about themselves which if broken causes them distress. Such people forget "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me". If some folks look for the deflamatory they are sure to find it.

Quote by: Autolykos I agree with Isherwood here. To call someone "devoid of ethical understanding", or any such similar term, may make one feel better about himself, but it does not constitute any sort of logical or factual proof against his opponent's argument(s). In other words, self-satisfaction has no place in debate. Debate is necessarily about logic and facts, not emotions. - Rob

Autolykos for future reference I am "devoid of ethical understanding". Whilst attempting to avoid personal attacks I am happily emotional and would prefer "fire" in a debate that can be aroused through being emotional about the topic, whilst attempting to ensure the argument is maintained through fact and logic (logic not being a strong suit for me :) ). So my we keep emototion in the debates to ensure it's passion is aroused.

As for self satisfaction well that is definately another issue :)

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos I agree with Isherwood here. To call someone "devoid of ethical understanding", or any such similar term, may make one feel better about himself, but it does not constitute any sort of logical or factual proof against his opponent's argument(s). In other words, self-satisfaction has no place in debate. Debate is necessarily about logic and facts, not emotions. - Rob

I would disagree with the contention that attacking the ethical content of an argument does not constitute a logical or factual proof against it. If I say that the best way to deal with the costs of long term illnesses among the elderly to society is to just gass anyone over 65 who has a chronic condition, it would be a perfectly legitimate, logical and factual counter-argument to say that was a very bad answer because it was completely unethical. What I do agree with is that when I call the person who puts the idea forth an uncaring bastard, they will shut down and be unavailable for further discussion. If I want to "change their thinking", I have blown pretty much any chance of that.

[lsbskins1]

More precisely put, one can be perfectly correct in your critique and completely unproductive in persuasion by being undiplomatic.

[underbear1]

When attacked, learn to attack BACK

"Don't need the police to try to save them
Your voice will sink so please stay off my back
Or I will attack and you don't want that

I've got the p o w e r"

Snap Lyrics