Posted: Wed 11 Jul 2007 15:30 Post subject: Rules - different standards
The Rules are not enforced in a neutral way. Where in the Rules does it justify creating a special standard just to suspend me if I make even ONE reply to Jaime's insults while he is free to insult me and only receive numerous "warnings" (maybe)?
If you want to create a different standard for some people because you think their contributions are valuable (or because they have a similar background, who knows), the Rules should make that clear.
Like "race," there are apparently written and unwritten Rules. The unwritten Rules are the bigger problem.
The problem is that AD often fails to distinguish between attacks on an idea or argument, on the one hand, and attacks on an individual, on the other.
Jaime often attacks AD's arguments or ideas. In fact, this seems to be one of his missions in life. But he seldom attacks AD personally or brings in material extraneous to the topic at hand. But because Jaime (often inaccurately) attacks AD's arguments or ideas, AD often responds by attacking Jaime personally or bringing up extraneous material.
Sample statements by Jaime: "Her false claims have been addressed before. ... Forgive me if I don't hold Winkel's evaluation as dogma. ... This is another one of Powell's opinions stated as fact." These claims may be inaccurate, but they address ideas, not a person. Hence, they are allowed.
Sample response by AD: "All you do is post bits and pieces over the internet, insulting people and trying to pick fights. Your parents obviously didn't teach you good manners. Get a job! ... It is obvious that Jaime is beyond reason on this issue. ... Everything Winkel wrote is superior to your drivel. ... Note his behavior during the 'Mexican American legal whiteness' discussion." Although these claims may be accurate, they address a person, not ideas. Hence, they are not allowed.
ad hominem is attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. ... In this site, ad hominem is when you bring up something derogatory about a person with whom you disagree, other than the "bone of contention" itself. You may point out the flaws that you see in you opponent's argument. But you may not try to discredit the other person by bringing up something from outside the thread or from a previous debate. ... You may not say that your opponent was wrong about a different topic entirely. Each topic should be debated as on its own and on the basis of data presented on this site.
It is usually possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponent is a fascist" with "My opponent's argument is fascist." Conversely, the mere fact that someone has demolished your argument does not per se mean that they engaged in ad hominem.
Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 11 Jul 2007 19:03; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed 11 Jul 2007 21:45 Post subject: double standard
fwsweet wrote:
The problem is that AD often fails to distinguish between attacks on an idea or argument, on the one hand, and attacks on an individual, on the other.
Jaime often attacks AD's arguments or ideas. In fact, this seems to be one of his missions in life. But he seldom attacks AD personally or brings in material extraneous to the topic at hand. But because Jaime (often inaccurately) attacks AD's arguments or ideas, AD often responds by attacking Jaime personally or bringing up extraneous material.
Sample statements by Jaime: "Her false claims have been addressed before. ... Forgive me if I don't hold Winkel's evaluation as dogma. ... This is another one of Powell's opinions stated as fact." These claims may be inaccurate, but they address ideas, not a person. Hence, they are allowed.
Sample response by AD: "All you do is post bits and pieces over the internet, insulting people and trying to pick fights. Your parents obviously didn't teach you good manners. Get a job! ... It is obvious that Jaime is beyond reason on this issue. ... Everything Winkel wrote is superior to your drivel. ... Note his behavior during the 'Mexican American legal whiteness' discussion." Although these claims may be accurate, they address a person, not ideas. Hence, they are not allowed.
ad hominem is attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. ... In this site, ad hominem is when you bring up something derogatory about a person with whom you disagree, other than the "bone of contention" itself. You may point out the flaws that you see in you opponent's argument. But you may not try to discredit the other person by bringing up something from outside the thread or from a previous debate. ... You may not say that your opponent was wrong about a different topic entirely. Each topic should be debated as on its own and on the basis of data presented on this site.
It is usually possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponent is a fascist" with "My opponent's argument is fascist." Conversely, the mere fact that someone has demolished your argument does not per se mean that they engaged in ad hominem.
Well, LOL. Are you claiming that you don't recognize lies, distortions and bullying? Jaime has no interest in dialogue. He is here to ATTACK people . You claim that Jaime ONLY wants to attack "my ideas." People in this forum don't know what my ideas are because Jaime distorts them with strawman arguments. He does this consistently. The "Mexican whiteness" wars should have been the last straw. You were wrong to let him get away with denying historical fact. Denying the legally white status of Mexican Americans makes about as much sense as trying to "debate" whether there was an American Civil War or not.
You still have not addressed the double standard used to protect Jaime. To say that Jaime does not attack me personally is an outright falsehood and is easily proved by going through his posts. If you want a double standard, you should put it in the Rules.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
