3 ms·
> Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Because that kind of information is used with a common rhetorical tactic called ad hominem. > Once
by nyokodo 4y ago
> Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?"
Because that kind of information is used with a common rhetorical tactic called ad hominem.
> Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in the situation you're responding to.
Assuming good faith is necessary and good for any kind of productive debate but it's not necessarily or need be accompanied by the trust necessary to answer personal questions. That kind of trust is developed over time with many people. Perhaps you are more trusting by default, all power to you, but it's naive to assume everyone ought to react the same way you do.
- kmill 4y agoIs the content of your comment that you are explaining ad hominem to me and that vanderZwan's question requires mutual trust? Yes, I fully understand this. The only thing I am trusting here is that vanderZwan is trying to accurately report their experiences. I trust, since they say it is done in good-faith discussions, that they are sensitive to the risk of this being perceived as being ad hominem and that in-person they ask the question in an appropriate way. To be clear, I never said that I would respond well to the question. My point is that it is a large leap to go from what vanderZwan said to that this is for the purpose of dismissing someone. Also to be clear, I think it's valid for P5fRxh5kUvp2th to think that this sort of question is well outside of what is ever respectful to ask. I just happen to think it's wrong to assume that disrespect is vanderZwan's intent.