|
|
Post by cascade on Dec 22, 2014 20:15:54 GMT
A few folks on this board have a nasty habit of making personal attacks rather than simply addressing the subject.
I'm sure that people who fear identifying themselves don't want to be subject to those personal attacks.
It's fine to "attack" an opinion, or "attack" a subject, but it's NOT fine to attack a person.
If you want folks to identify themselves, then you should remove all posts that contain PERSONAL ATTACKS on INDIVIDUALS, and you should ban individuals who repeatedly make those personal attacks.
Perhaps the Administrator should scan through the posts and delete any that contain PERSONAL attacks right now. I can help provide the Administrator with a list of some of those posts if you want.
If this board continues to allow personal attacks, this board will flounder and fail.
|
|
Admin
Junior Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by Admin on Dec 22, 2014 23:06:49 GMT
What is a Personal Attack?
Wiktionary; Making of an abusive remark on or relating to one's person instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments.
Nizkor Project;
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Dec 23, 2014 0:14:28 GMT
Kirk,
I disagree. I've been reading and participating in forums for over 20 years. Most adults are capable of fending for themselves.
The forums which always drew the most participation and lurkers are those where the discussions are allowed to be natural. ( As they should be in America where our freedom of speech, opinion, expression has been assured for a couple centuries plus). Moderators who busy themselves moderating usually ruin more forums than they help
One of the most interesting forums I ever read ( and frankly tentatively participated in) was an animal rights forum where members of HSUS, PETA, and ASPCA gathered. You can imagine. . . . . that forum jumped! A few people who entered the discussion were unhappy by responses they received. . . and they complained and moderators began to exert power and control and began removing posts. It was a very short period of time and the power corrupted and and became absolute. A very interesting forum was destroyed. In no time at all there was little to be learned. . . and I appreciated that I learned much there between the competing and adversarial participants.
I think it always best to permit people to be themselves. There is much to be learned about the subjects under discussion as well as the folks involved in them. Yes. . .. now and again even the best get crankier than they should, they usually rein themselves in. . . and discussions go on. I think there has been some good information here from both sides. I've certainly learned things.
One sight suggested that if a participant feels they are being attacked personally, rather than their opinion being the focus of a response . . that the person speak up and say so! I have done that in the past. . . and with reasonable people just caught up in the moment. . . it is usually effective.
Judy
|
|
