Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo
Your post is otherwise cogent and well developed, but these last two paragraphs seriously taint your credibility as someone whose moral beliefs should be agreed with. Your mistake is one that I see made all too often, and it's really frustrating for me when it occurs.
Essentially, you're making ad hominem attacks just as much as he was--perhaps more so, in that you actually call your shot by declaring you are aware the nature of such arguments before proceeding to make one. Listing your own accomplishments in a way like this is generally intended not just as a defensive response but also as a way of defamation, as in "you aren't as good as me": see the passive-agressive comment about tabletop games.
Then you turn around and say that the argument should not be personal. Right after making the argument personal. Essentially, all that a paragraph like this says to a reader like me is "I'm better than you, and if you disagree then that's an ad hominem attack, so I get the last word. Ha."
In the future, a better response would be to dismiss his ad hominem claims by pointing them out for what they are without bothering to refute them. If his technique is already fallacious, the factual correctness of what he is saying about you is of no import.
My two cents.
|
I accept the criticism.
I also note that rhetorically, even his fallacious argument could be influential—hence my desire to foreclose that line of argumentation.
Patrick recently (in another thread) wrote of his professional accomplishments in the design of games
1 as being a pertinent qualification to discuss FRC issues. (He also listed several academic degrees he earned.) He then insinuated that to understand the issue, I should acquire a level of expertise akin to his own, without actually knowing whether I might have alternative qualifications that give weight to my opinions. I let that slide in the other thread, but felt I should put the matter to rest when he reiterated his uninformed criticism above, adding "we've already established that your vision of a clear regulatory standard has no basis in the real world vis-a-vis either game design or engineering specifications". I obviously disagree that anything of the sort has been established, and listed some reasons why he ought not jump to that conclusion (and why I think others ought not believe him so readily).
In other words, I presented a list of accomplishments to refute his statement, and not to assert superiority; when I said "I didn't dismiss your expertise as a substitute for a cogent argument", I meant that.
But yes, the tabletop gaming comment was perhaps too pointed, was certainly
ad hominem and diluted the point I was trying to convey. Although I'm usually reasonably good at avoiding it, sometimes a full-bodied insult is too tempting to pass up, especially in response to repeated slights.
2
1 He mentioned tabletop games before, so I'm assuming that's the experience he was citing.
2 As has already been noted, Patrick disagrees with me that those were slights. I think they were, and think they were probably intentional, despite his protestations.