[governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words"

Fri Aug 9 23:02:45 EDT 2013

Some time we need to understand issues properly before we go ahead to
release our bad behaviors in wordings.

We know interest had brought so many depressive oppressions, we can
gradually deliberate it without attacks.

People go into ventures and business for profits while many lost their
lives for the profit of the greedy businessman.

How can we solve the equality approach of LIFE ?

Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA

"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively."

+234 8027510179
On Aug 10, 2013 2:48 AM, "Kabani" <kabani.asif at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 well said Bertrand
>
> On Friday, August 9, 2013, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
>> Parminder,
>>
>> I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly
>> the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at
>> the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil
>> society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and
>> indeed becoming irrelevant.
>>
>> I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You
>> wrote: "*Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist
>> people's words in order to score political points*"".
>>
>> I would like to differ. "*You tend to twist people's words in order to
>> score political points*" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia)
>> because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of
>> yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you
>> display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's
>> position.
>>
>> To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance:
>> "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must
>> not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this
>> person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned",
>> this IS twisting people's words.  In this case, you are basically saying:
>> Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it.
>> This is putting words in somebody else's mouth.
>>
>> To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem
>> attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or
>> ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did
>> not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's
>> comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to
>> certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack
>> of civil society purity, etc...
>>
>> This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and
>> actually weakening its influence in the global debate.
>>
>> I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with
>> them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of
>> the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments
>> when one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had
>> called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound
>> debate.
>>
>> This is below you. You have more to contribute.
>>
>> Respectfully still.
>>
>> Bertrand
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  ad hominem comment
>>>>>
>>>> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos -
>>>> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and
>>>> we could all get back to rational calm conversations)
>>>>
>>>> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a
>>>> bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant.
>>>> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad
>>> hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion,
>>> someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and
>>> with a view to undermine, her/ his argument.  You are making a specious
>>> distinction above that  does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal
>>> attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list,
>>> where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no
>>> particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an
>>> allegation and an ad hominem attack.
>>>
>>>  Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to
>>> me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves
>>> could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc,
>>> whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.)
>>>
>>> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's
>>> words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in
>>> terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously
>>> to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette
>>> seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I
>>> said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my
>>> view. Nothing personal here.
>>>
>>>
>>>  For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but
>>>> sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense.
>>>> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying,
>>>> but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong
>>>> way I will get beat up for it.
>>>>
>>>> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just
>>>> so mean.
>>>>
>>>> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants)
>>>>
>>>> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the
>>>> greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent.
>>>> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list
>>>> for fear of starting a flame war.
>>>> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm
>>>> to pass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made
>>> directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends
>>> towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things
>>> about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than
>>> anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my
>>> claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the
>>> precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you
>>> find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of
>>> someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a
>>> personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back
>>> further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very
>>> good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue
>>> with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I  just want
>>> it to out for everyone to see,  rather that your be subject to your
>>> insinuations.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Someone/everyone, please stop the venom.
>>>> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I
>>> am ready to enter a discussion about.
>>>
>>>  When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the
>>>> outrageousness of a few individuals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not
>>> people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there
>>> enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side
>>> and at other times the other  side will feel strongly about things.) But,
>>> never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly
>>> subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my
>>> statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's
>>> email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of
>>> starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one,
>>> given the normal standards.
>>>
>>> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and
>>> positions of a good part of  civil society involved in IG space - often
>>> dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures,
>>> which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some
>>> people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never
>>> directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have -
>>> and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances -  and
>>> I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.)
>>>
>>>
>>>  The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined....
>>> That is always the million dollar democratic question!
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>  please stop
>>>>
>>>> Note to coordinators.  I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive
>>>> being kicked of the list would bring great relief.
>>>> I have heard others say similar things.
>>>>
>>>> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ____________________
>> Bertrand de La Chapelle
>> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic
>> Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net)
>> Member, ICANN Board of Directors
>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>>
>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
>> Saint Exupéry
>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent from iPad
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130810/a4c82e3f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t