"How dare you insult me!" - "What...!?"

[Betterave]

An objective exchange of ideas without any remarks about individuals.

But since individuals tend to identify themselves with their ideas (the ones they care about), it would seem to follow that we could only have philosophical discussions about things we really don’t care about.

 

[Betterave]

Strictly speaking, ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which a person’s character is used as part of a logical argument against that person’s logical arguments. It’s not the same thing as an insult.

Actually, that’s wrong. Strictly speaking, ad hominem statements are often perfectly relevant. There is an* ad hominem* fallacy, but this refers to a fallacious *use *of an ad hominem statement. It certainly doesn’t imply that ad hominem statements as such are fallacious.

Sure. But if you immediately turn around and say, “What? What did I do?” with innocent doe-eyes, you’ve got some problems.

I shall quote Schopenhauer here (emphases added; thank you to InSpiration for the excellent reference) and note that you seem embittered and that your statement here “has no bearing on the point in dispute”:

A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.

It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself. For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect - a process which occurs in every dialectical victory - you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression. Why is this? Because, as Hobbes observes,17 all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one’s own advantage. Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it. Hence such phrases as “Death before dishonour,” and so on. The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one’s intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy. Hence the embitterment of defeat, apart from any question of injustice; and hence recourse to that last weapon, that last trick, which you cannot evade by mere politeness. A cool demeanour may, however, help you here, if, as soon as your opponent becomes personal, you quietly reply, “That has no bearing on the point in dispute,” and immediately bring the conversation back to it, and continue to show him that he is wrong, without taking any notice of his insults. Say, as Themistocles said to Eurybiades - Strike, but hear me. But such demeanour is not given to every one.

 

[Betterave]

I would probably be most inclined to insult someone in the process of explaining to him and any listeners why he should be refused as an interlocutor in philosophical debate.

• “You won’t argue with me because you know you can’t prove it.”
• “I can, but then to do so would be a wasteful expense to my intellectual faculty, since a logical proof only tends to be as demonstrative as its interpreter’s IQ will allow.”

or

• “You’re not even addressing my points seriously anymore!”
• “Your points are too childishly simplistic to entertain. To pretend they’re worthy of anything beyond mockery and dismissal would be to pay them an undeserved compliment and aid your suggestion that my view warrants controversy.”

I think that’s how it’s used a lot, actually. The dispute just naturally ends up being whether there’s any merit for the judgment that further conversation is pointless. And because that dispute employs an insult as one of its very premises, it can get personal; the guy will attack the premise asserting his idiocy more often than not in order to support his conclusion in favor of continued debate.

Unfortunately, I agree with Schopenhauer’s last two paragraphs here, but then I get the feeling a majority of folks would identify with the more self-aggrandizing sentiment (meaning of course that, if it’s correct, most of those sympathies would probably be a product of delusion).

I hope everyone checks the link you provide here. It seems to me that if we take old Arthur seriously, we are left with two options: write off 99 per cent of people as philosophical morons, with whom it is best to simply avoid philosophical discussion; or attempt to directly address the major impediment to fruitful philosophical discussion whenever we need to, which impediment is, the fact that people are mostly vain and hate to be wrong and become bitter and combative when confronted with their own errors. So it turns out that the first step on the road to wisdom is ad hominem, know thyself (not just abstract ideas), as the ancient Greeks said. In other words, we need to take seriously Socrates’s advice that the first step towards knowing is admitting that you don’t know (at least when you don’t know - and certainly to admit this as a general prima facie possibility).

 

[Betterave]

Why can’t you simply address the assumptions in Jo’s statement, rather than pass judgement on it, calling it “simplistic” - which is not the word I would use for a statement like that, by the way - I’d call it “outright wrong and just plain crazy,” if I were passing a judgement on it - “simple” doesn’t even enter into it.

Two points:

1. I disagree with your assessment, but if you read Schopenhauer your reaction might well be preferred by Jo because it is insulting and dismissive but doesn’t make a serious effort to show what is wrong with Jo’s position: “For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect - a process which occurs in every dialectical victory - you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression.”
2. One important lesson to remember is that whether an assessment of a view as, e.g., simplistic counts as an insult or as a(n at least prima facie) legitimate comment depends on the context. Context matters, always.

 

[tonyrey]

But since individuals tend to identify themselves with their ideas (the ones they care about), it would seem to follow that we could only have philosophical discussions about things we really don’t care about.

It is not impossible to be objective when you discuss a subject you really care about. Your self-restraint can make more impact if your argument is cogent. It doesn’t need to be bolstered by emotion.

 

[PRmerger]

If someone is insulted and offended by your post, and this is an isolated incident, it may be that the reader is inordinately sensitive.

If, however, it seems to be the norm that one is getting many complaints about how offensive and rude your posts are, then it would seem prudent to consider that, perhaps, you are, well, offensive and rude.

(“You” here being a generic “you”, of course.)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

If someone is insulted and offended by your post, and this is an isolated incident, it may be that the reader is inordinately sensitive.

If, however, it seems to be the norm that one is getting many complaints about how offensive and rude your posts are, then it would seem prudent to consider that, perhaps, you are, well, offensive and rude.

(“You” here being a generic “you”, of course.)

I think Betterave is very rude frankly.
But that’s okay (from my perspective) because I find him amusing.

However, one of the reasons I find him so amusing is because I have largely given up on having any sort of rational discussion with him. You cannot have any sort of meaningful debate with someone who is never willing to admit that they are wrong.

At this point I generally just point out when he is obviously wrong (such as when he is denying insulting someone he called simplistic, incapable of learning, etc.) for my own entertainment and the benefit of anyone participating in a thread.

I certainly don’t expect Betterave to concede anything.

 

[PRmerger]

I think Betterave is very rude frankly.
But that’s okay (from my perspective) because I find him amusing.

However, one of the reasons I find him so amusing is because I have largely given up on having any sort of rational discussion with him. You cannot have any sort of meaningful debate with someone who is never willing to admit that they are wrong.

At this point I generally just point out when he is obviously wrong (such as when he is denying insulting someone he called simplistic, incapable of learning, etc.) for my own entertainment and the benefit of anyone participating in a thread.

I certainly don’t expect Betterave to concede anything.

Well, I certainly can’t disagree, but I am speaking in generalizations here as it is against forum rules to talk about a particular member. I am speaking, in general, with this principle: If someone is insulted and offended by your post, and this is an isolated incident, it may be that the reader is inordinately sensitive.

If, however, it seems to be the norm that one is getting many complaints about how offensive and rude your posts are, then it would seem prudent to consider that, perhaps, you are, well, offensive and rude.

With “you” meaning a generic "you’.

That seems to be a fair assessment, no?

Now, that being said, AnAngryAtheist, can you cite a post where you conceded that you were wrong?

 

[Elizabeth502]

When you call Jo’s view simplistic, is this an insult?

I.m.o., it is not an insult to call an argument simplistic (a line of reasoning). However, a person should not be called “simplistic” because that, as others have said, implies intellectual inferiority, which is (yes) an insult. The problem is, in this case, the use of the word “view.” I know that sounds like parsing words, but “view” is often equated with one’s personal, subjective perspective, and is thus much more of a “personal” comment than describing an argument (a line of reasoning).

Why do people think it is not okay for someone to criticize their view?

As long as the criticism does not involve the person, personality, life experience, then I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. There are some people that demand to be handled with kid gloves and are easily offended if another poster does have superior knowledge (not brains, just knowledge), and such posters will call those people “arrogant” for the “gall” of backing up a statement with an objectively superior set of facts, no matter how neutrally expressed. However,

Suppose Jo says, “I don’t know you, but I do know that I am your intellectual equal - you couldn’t possibly be more intelligent or better informed than me.” Would it be an insult to point out to Jo that s/he is being arrogant and irrational?

Yes! How do you know that Jo is not “your” (my, anyone’s) “intellectual equal?” Her argument may seem to be the statement of an intellectual inferior (be poorly expressed, poorly laid out, in poor sequence, etc.), but those may be aspects of poor training in expression, not of cerebral capacity. Further, “arrogant” is a loaded word (as explained above); it’s actually a moral statement about someone that crosses the line, i.m.o. And especially loaded is the word “irrational.” That signfiies lack of emotional control and even “crazy.” Extremely rude and presumptuous for anyone to say. Again, to dispute an argument as being “not a rational argument” is perfectly acceptable. That’s not implying that the person is crazy, unbalanced, etc.

I think you can say that an argument is:
~not sound
~not coherent
~internally inconsistent
~illogical
~lacking facts
~circular
~fallacious
~an emotional argument rather than an intellectual argument (or even an irrational argument).

I recently saw that one poster gently chided another for “sounding arrogant” in his post, without accusing the poster of “being arrogant.” Big difference. It may not sound like it to some, but there is a big difference. And in the case above, the poster took the correction and acknowledged that he could have phrased it better & hadn’t meant to sound that way.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, I certainly can’t disagree, but I am speaking in generalizations here as it is against forum rules to talk about a particular member. I am speaking, in general, with this principle: If someone is insulted and offended by your post, and this is an isolated incident, it may be that the reader is inordinately sensitive.

If, however, it seems to be the norm that one is getting many complaints about how offensive and rude your posts are, then it would seem prudent to consider that, perhaps, you are, well, offensive and rude.

With “you” meaning a generic "you’.

That seems to be a fair assessment, no?

Now, that being said, AnAngryAtheist, can you cite a post where you conceded that you were wrong?

I admitted I was wrong about when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire when someone pointed out what the correct time period was.

I also apologized to someone in the first or second thread where I sparred with Betterave for ignoring their posts in favor of Betterave’s more provocative messages.

To be honest I am somewhat stubborn, but I can admit I am wrong, although it does not come easily to me (at least when it concerns things I care about).

 

[PRmerger]

I admitted I was wrong about when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire when someone pointed out what the correct time period was.

I also apologized to someone in the first or second thread where I sparred with Betterave for ignoring their posts in favor of Betterave’s more provocative messages.

To be honest I am somewhat stubborn, but I can admit I am wrong, although it does not come easily to me (at least when it concerns things I care about).

 

[chevalier]

When you call Jo’s view simplistic, is this an insult? Of course not. It is just a claim that Jo’s view is simplistic, most views are simplistic, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and you think Jo’s view is one of those simplistic views. But to your surprise, Jo gets upset: “How dare you insult me!”

Why do people think it is not okay for someone to criticize their view? Suppose Jo says, “I don’t know you, but I do know that I am your intellectual equal - you couldn’t possibly be more intelligent or better informed than me.” Would it be an insult to point out to Jo that s/he is being arrogant and irrational? Suppose s/he responds by saying, “How dare you suggest that what I have said is not true and insult me by calling me arrogant and irrational!” Would it be an insult to point out to Jo that s/he is still being arrogant and irrational, and that s/he is proving the very point that s/he is disputing?

It seems like people are often unable to distinguish between a legitimate criticism (which is essential to philosophical dialogue) and a gratuitous insult. I wonder: why is that?

A label won’t suffice for constructive criticism. If you told me my view were simplistic without specifying what actually was wrong with it (e.g. what data I were missing on, where my inferences were leaking etc.), and then you claimed there’s nothing inherently wrong with being simplistic anyway and you meant it as a neutral observation, then I’d probably ask you to keep such neutral observations to yourself.

 

[Betterave]

A label won’t suffice for constructive criticism. If you told me my view were simplistic without specifying what actually was wrong with it (e.g. what data I were missing on, where my inferences were leaking etc.), and then you claimed there’s nothing inherently wrong with being simplistic anyway and you meant it as a neutral observation, then I’d probably ask you to keep such neutral observations to yourself.

So your implicit premise here is that calling a view simplistic is not a possible way to specify what is actually wrong with it. Do you really think that’s true? Take AngryAtheist’s view where he claims the following:
I think Betterave is very rude frankly.
But that’s okay (from my perspective) because I find him amusing.

However, one of the reasons I find him so amusing is because I have largely given up on having any sort of rational discussion with him. You cannot have any sort of meaningful debate with someone who is never willing to admit that they are wrong.

At this point I generally just point out when he is obviously wrong (such as when he is denying insulting someone he called simplistic, incapable of learning, etc.) for my own entertainment and the benefit of anyone participating in a thread.

I certainly don’t expect Betterave to concede anything.
Now it seems to me that at least one of the several things ‘wrong’ with this statement is that it is simplistic. If you compare Elizabeth502’s response, I would also have some points to criticize, but it is clearly not nearly as simplistic.

 

[Betterave]

If someone is insulted and offended by your post, and this is an isolated incident, it may be that the reader is inordinately sensitive.

If, however, it seems to be the norm that one is getting many complaints about how offensive and rude your posts are, then it would seem prudent to consider that, perhaps, you are, well, offensive and rude.

(“You” here being a generic “you”, of course.)

That is of course true as a general consideration about what is prudent. But upon prudently considering the matter I have found that people are often violently irrational when their beliefs are challenged, even in a perfectly reasonable way. This is something that you can certainly observe and reflect upon when reading the Gospels - you don’t have to take my word for it, which you’ll probably just ignore anyway and insist that I’m just trying to justify my own bad behavior (see poisoning the well - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well).

 

[PRmerger]

T you don’t have to take my word for it, which you’ll probably just ignore anyway and insist that I’m just trying to justify my own bad behavior (see poisoning the well - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well).

Well, friend, it’s good to see you back. And it’s good to see you admit that there was some bad behavior.

Again, if one person takes offense when you are making a remark, then it may indeed be that this person is hyper-sensitive.

But when the behavior shows a pattern of offensive and insensitive remarks, and a myriad of individuals make the same observation, then it prudent thing is to take a mirror upon thyself, and change the behavior.

I hope that the time off serves to present a chastened, happier posting style, for we certainly need your apologia here on the CAFs!

 

[Betterave]

I.m.o., it is not an insult to call an argument simplistic (a line of reasoning). However, a person should not be called “simplistic” because that, as others have said, implies intellectual inferiority, which is (yes) an insult. The problem is, in this case, the use of the word “view.” I know that sounds like parsing words, but “view” is often equated with one’s personal, subjective perspective, and is thus much more of a “personal” comment than describing an argument (a line of reasoning).

I submit simply the following: to call a person’s view simplistic is to explicitly address whatever they have said, and it is irrelevant whether what they have said expresses a personal subjective perspective or not. The same applies no more, no less to a person’s argument. If you disagree, please explain why.

As long as the criticism does not involve the person, personality, life experience, then I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. There are some people that demand to be handled with kid gloves and are easily offended if another poster does have superior knowledge (not brains, just knowledge), and such posters will call those people “arrogant” for the “gall” of backing up a statement with an objectively superior set of facts, no matter how neutrally expressed. However,

I don’t know what you mean by implying that a criticism ought not to involve the person, personality, life experience of a person. You seem to imply that, for example, if someone has committed adultery we ought not to criticize the committing of adultery insofar as that person defends it (which seems plainly absurd).

Yes! How do you know that Jo is not “your” (my, anyone’s) “intellectual equal?” Her argument may seem to be the statement of an intellectual inferior (be poorly expressed, poorly laid out, in poor sequence, etc.), but those may be aspects of poor training in expression, not of cerebral capacity. Further, “arrogant” is a loaded word (as explained above); it’s actually a moral statement about someone that crosses the line, i.m.o. And especially loaded is the word “irrational.” That signfiies lack of emotional control and even “crazy.” Extremely rude and presumptuous for anyone to say. Again, to dispute an argument as being “not a rational argument” is perfectly acceptable. That’s not implying that the person is crazy, unbalanced, etc.

Not that it is really to the point, but there are many ways you can know how, actually. The basic rule was expressed well enough by Forest Gump: stupid is as stupid does.

As for ‘irrational’ signifying lack of emotional control and even ‘crazy’ - that’s crazy! ‘Irrational’ simply signifies lack of reason, not rational, a failure to follow basic rules of reasoning, a mistake in reasoning, illogical, etc.

I recently saw that one poster gently chided another for “sounding arrogant” in his post, without accusing the poster of “being arrogant.” Big difference. It may not sound like it to some, but there is a big difference. And in the case above, the poster took the correction and acknowledged that he could have phrased it better & hadn’t meant to sound that way.

I absolutely agree and that’s a story with happy ending, which is nice. But often people (on the receiving end) completely ignore this kind of distinction. They don’t take “that sounds x to me” as a gentle suggestion to consider and perhaps discuss in a reasonable way the x-ness of their comments, they take it as “how dare you call me x!”

 

[chevalier]

So your implicit premise here is that calling a view simplistic is not a possible way to specify what is actually wrong with it. Do you really think that’s true? Take AngryAtheist’s view where he claims the following:
I think Betterave is very rude frankly.
But that’s okay (from my perspective) because I find him amusing.

However, one of the reasons I find him so amusing is because I have largely given up on having any sort of rational discussion with him. You cannot have any sort of meaningful debate with someone who is never willing to admit that they are wrong.

At this point I generally just point out when he is obviously wrong (such as when he is denying insulting someone he called simplistic, incapable of learning, etc.) for my own entertainment and the benefit of anyone participating in a thread.

I certainly don’t expect Betterave to concede anything.
Now it seems to me that at least one of the several things ‘wrong’ with this statement is that it is simplistic. If you compare Elizabeth502’s response, I would also have some points to criticize, but it is clearly not nearly as simplistic.

You’re inconsistent (your current excuse is irreconcilable with one from the OP). Either “simplistic” is an indication of the problem itself, in which case you have stated an issue and cannot use the excuse that “simplistic” is supposedly not necessarily a wrong thing (the comment thus being descriptive and not a judgement), or, in line with the argumentation you provided in the OP, “simplistic” is a merely descriptive, somewhat neutral term, in which case it’s not the indication of a problem, in which case it’s of no use to me as a listener, more as if you told me, “your shoes are brown,” or, “you’re 6’5’’ tall,” to which would be useless feedback to me.

 

[Betterave]

You’re inconsistent (your current excuse is irreconcilable with one from the OP). Either “simplistic” is an indication of the problem itself, in which case you have stated an issue and cannot use the excuse that “simplistic” is supposedly not necessarily a wrong thing (the comment thus being descriptive and not a judgement), or, in line with the argumentation you provided in the OP, “simplistic” is a merely descriptive, somewhat neutral term, in which case it’s not the indication of a problem, in which case it’s of no use to me as a listener, more as if you told me, “your shoes are brown,” or, “you’re 6’5’’ tall,” to which would be useless feedback to me.

I’m afraid you have ignored the modal qualifier ‘necessarily’ in my OP, not to mention the vagueness of the notion of ‘bad thing’ (you have completely ignored the question “…in respect of what?”). Have another read. That which is not necessarily a bad thing may well *sometimes *or often (or rarely or almost always, for that matter) be a bad thing. So clearly I have not been inconsistent; you have posed a false dichotomy.

In any case, you clearly seem to be cavilling here. Clearly the diagnosis of a view as simplistic is not at all useless feedback (analogous to “your shoes are brown” - ) - provided, that is, that the person whose view is being criticized is not useless when it comes to listening and responding reasonably to criticisms of her views. (If you need me to explain why this is so, I can do so, but in itself I take it to be a perfectly obvious point.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t know what you mean by implying that a criticism ought not to involve the person, personality, life experience of a person.

In your OP you gave examples of criticisms which, as they were framed, extended to the person, not to the person’s arguments.

You seem to imply that, for example, if someone has committed adultery we ought not to criticize the committing of adultery insofar as that person defends it (which seems plainly absurd).

That’s a clearly illogical jump, calling into question your assessment of the arguments of others and of the art of argument in itself.

Not that it is really to the point, but there are many ways you can know how, actually. The basic rule was expressed well enough by Forest Gump: stupid is as stupid does.

And often I can tell as well. But I don’t call the person stupid, with that word or equivalent words. Also, again, in some cases the person has not been exposed to sufficient training. Sometimes it’s possible, by using some skill in how one posts, to clarify how to argue a point without talking down to the person, and thus something constructive has been done with an observation. (Rather than using the observation to deliver an insult.)

I will note that in addition, you do have a way of maintaining a superior air toward other people. I have a pretty good idea that my education and intelligence easily matches yours, but here is the way you responded to a recent reply of mine:

If you compare Elizabeth502’s response, I would also have some points to criticize, but it is clearly not nearly as simplistic.

Why do you have to make a special point to insult someone, particularly when the insult is not warranted? So apparently you believe that I, or my points, are also “simplistic.” Does it occur to you that you may not be an objective judge of which arguments are “simplistic,” let alone whose minds are simple, in the view of other posters whose intellect may very well at least match your own?

As for ‘irrational’ signifying lack of emotional control and even ‘crazy’ - that’s crazy! ‘Irrational’ simply signifies lack of reason, not rational, a failure to follow basic rules of reasoning, a mistake in reasoning, illogical, etc.

Then you call the argument “not rational,” not the person. To call a person irrational is to imply that they are mentally and/or emotionally imbalanced. That is definitely an insult.

In short, I agree with a respected poster, here:

Why can’t you simply address the assumptions in Jo’s statement, rather than pass judgement on it, calling it “simplistic”

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Betterave

Here is what I take to be a simple point: I very clearly referred to your response, i.e., not to you yourself. Yet you choose to infer from what I said the following:

“So apparently you believe that I, or my points, are also ‘simplistic.’”

So, please, without resorting to any more ad hominem fluff, can you explain your inference to an “I”-option here?

You seem to want to insist on going ad hominem, making this about a battle for intellectual supremacy, but has it occurred to you whether or not our intellects are ‘matched’ is completely irrelevant? What you refer to is a ‘beetle in a box’* as far as this discussion is concerned: I don’t care how much you want to insist on quarrelling about who has a better beetle in his or her box; since we have no way of ever checking whose beetle actually is better, that kind of discussion is utterly pointless. That’s why I address my criticisms to your manifest *arguments *instead of to your invisible ‘intellect.’ It would be nice if you could do the same.

*Just in case you’re not familiar, this is a Wittgenstinian concept.