3 ms·

That's an ad hominem. Rather than debating the merits of his suggestion, you're attacking his person. Furthermore, it's not unreasonable for people living in o

by 542458 11y ago

That's an ad hominem. Rather than debating the merits of his suggestion, you're attacking his person. Furthermore, it's not unreasonable for people living in one country to have opinions on the policies of others, especially when it's something like taking in refugees which has strong influences on a global scale.

dropit_sphere 11y ago
I don't think ad hominem is necessarily a bad thing in this case; we practice it as a society by not counting votes from 17-yr-olds based not on the merits of their ideas, but their persons. And in this specific case: citizenship and residency ought to give one's voice more weight.
- 542458 11y ago
  For sure, but we're not counting votes, we discussing policy. In the case of discussion the goal is to hear many sides and opinions of the merits and drawbacks of an issue. Just like how in an election non-voting minors can still participate in debate, in a discussion of policy I think we should still hear the opinions of others.
  - dropit_sphere 11y ago
    But was it an opinion? When members of a group discuss policy for that group, they do so under the implicit assumption that their values are similar enough that what they are doing in the conversation is trying to find a way to achieve their shared values. But the great-great-great-grandparent comment was simply a statement of values, not a suggestion of how parties concerned could achieve theirs. I realize the lines are fuzzy: HN is certainly not a 'murican forum for 'murican issues. But its composition is such that neither is it a non-American forum. As such, the greatx3-grandparent could have been more sensitive.
ManFromUranus 11y ago
He's not attacking his person and it's not ad-hominem, he's saying the guy is basically a moral hazard, he is advocating for policies here that he won't have to suffer the consequences of.
- jacobush 11y ago
  You are a MORAL HAZARD. That is not an ad-hominem. But seriously, I thought we all share the same planet and thus share the consequences.
  - veeti 11y ago
    Get real. The consequences (whether they are good or bad, I don't know) are obviously more relevant to those actually living in the country than those shouting what to do from the other side of the planet.
    - ashleyp 11y ago
      I think you're missing his point.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > He's not attacking his person and it's not ad-hominem, he's saying the guy is basically a moral hazard, he is advocating for policies here that he won't have to suffer the consequences of. That is ad hominem -- specifically, ad hominem circumstantial [0] -- and lies at the nexus between the genetic fallacy and appeal to motive. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial

by 542458 11y ago

dropit_sphere 11y ago

I don't think ad hominem is necessarily a bad thing in this case; we practice it as a society by not counting votes from 17-yr-olds based not on the merits of their ideas, but their persons. And in this specific case: citizenship and residency ought to give one's voice more weight.

542458 11y ago
For sure, but we're not counting votes, we discussing policy. In the case of discussion the goal is to hear many sides and opinions of the merits and drawbacks of an issue. Just like how in an election non-voting minors can still participate in debate, in a discussion of policy I think we should still hear the opinions of others.
- dropit_sphere 11y ago
  But was it an opinion? When members of a group discuss policy for that group, they do so under the implicit assumption that their values are similar enough that what they are doing in the conversation is trying to find a way to achieve their shared values. But the great-great-great-grandparent comment was simply a statement of values, not a suggestion of how parties concerned could achieve theirs. I realize the lines are fuzzy: HN is certainly not a 'murican forum for 'murican issues. But its composition is such that neither is it a non-American forum. As such, the greatx3-grandparent could have been more sensitive.

ManFromUranus 11y ago

He's not attacking his person and it's not ad-hominem, he's saying the guy is basically a moral hazard, he is advocating for policies here that he won't have to suffer the consequences of.

jacobush 11y ago
You are a MORAL HAZARD. That is not an ad-hominem. But seriously, I thought we all share the same planet and thus share the consequences.
- veeti 11y ago
  Get real. The consequences (whether they are good or bad, I don't know) are obviously more relevant to those actually living in the country than those shouting what to do from the other side of the planet.
  - ashleyp 11y ago
    I think you're missing his point.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 11y ago
> He's not attacking his person and it's not ad-hominem, he's saying the guy is basically a moral hazard, he is advocating for policies here that he won't have to suffer the consequences of. That is ad hominem -- specifically, ad hominem circumstantial [0] -- and lies at the nexus between the genetic fallacy and appeal to motive. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial