The persistence is just sad. Kind of reminds me of one of those pathetic politicians who has clearly lost an election but refuses to concede defeat and congratulate their opponent. This is embarassing to watch :/
Quakes - sometimes it is wise to know when to quit and save what is left of your credibility / reputation.
quakes99 wrote:Personal attacks - What to do when you perceive your opponent's arguments are strong and gaining credibility by an audience you want to control.
An
ad hominem (
Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"
[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, means
responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than addressing the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a
fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.
Abusive
ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments.
Ad feminam is defined as appealing to irrelevant considerations about women, in particular, prejudices against them or stereotypes about them, rather than giving an answer to the contentions they made.
Often, ad hominem attacks are used subtly in order to influence the views of spectators. There are many forms of this, such as pointing out bad things they (the opponent) have done in the past in arguments about morality (the argument that the opponent does not practice what they preach is a special case called ad hominem tu quoque).
Another case is the circumstantial ad hominem or appeal to motive where an opponent's argument is discarded on the basis that they have some motivation for making it; for example, that it is in a banker's best interests to say he has not stolen from his company's accounts, so obviously he has. All "well they would say that, wouldn't they?" arguments are based on this form of ad hominem.
Ad hominem attacks are hardly ever used plainly, and people who do are generally
trolls who want to provoke people to fight.
Character assassination is a
deliberate and sustained process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, social group, or nation.
[1] Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as
raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumours, and manipulating information.
Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's
reputation. It may involve
exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of
defamation and can be a form of
ad hominem argument.
Using exaggerations, mockery, allegations, lies, insinuations, and slander, the attackers try to hurt their victims morally and emotionally in the eyes of public opinion.
Character assassination is as old as human civilization. Throughout history, people of all ranks, occupations, and persuasions employ character attacks against their opponents. Numerous historical examples show that character assassination has often been a very effective weapon to win political battles, discredit unwelcome religious views, or settle personal scores. On the one hand, time, individuals, and circumstances change but the key methods of character assassination remain amazingly consistent. On the other hand, attacks are constantly refined and enhanced. Their speed and scope grow. Due to the rise of modern democracies and mass media, character attacks now reach a global audience in minutes.
Just a typical day on Stockhouse :-)