Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

ad hominem, no
Reader comment on item: Two Years of Intifada

Submitted by jackstpaul (United States), Oct 15, 2002 at 06:11

Second attempt at posting a response here--now slightly revised.

Dane: "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives."

I agree that Abunimah was not launching an ad hominem attack. He was--as minimally as Mr. Pipes allowed him to go--addressing Mr. Pipe's arguments and assertions of another point in time relating to the topic(s) at hand. He was not attacking "the man" nor "personal considerations." That is, unless one defines one's previous logic and reasoning as "personal considerations" or "motives."

Whether, and more pointedly, to what extent, Abunimah's comment was relevant to the arguments, facts, and assertions on the agenda, was never truly established because of the response of the moderator and Mr. Pipes. I find much greater fault with Mr. Pipes' behavior because I think his response was fully without substance and served to do nothing but shut down, or threaten to, the debate and/or limit the terms of it declaring his own previous positions off-limits. Let Abunimah make his claim and pick it apart if it is wrong, unworthy, irrelevant, or ad hominem. Unfortunately, a great deal of time was wasted in the protestation of the "ad hominem" claim—an attack that never arrived, were it to have been on the way--which I don't think there is any evidence suggesting was the case.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (21) on this item

Title By Date
here is an intelligent question for you and all [124 words]RobertApr 8, 2009 01:33
No Personal Insult [13 words]Gary GunnelsApr 7, 2003 03:38
⇒ ad hominem, no [225 words]jackstpaulOct 15, 2002 06:11
Yes... it was Ad Hominem [59 words]DaneOct 9, 2002 19:23
Land isn't a carnival prize [848 words]jackstpaulOct 9, 2002 04:13
Again, Thank you Mr. Pipes [69 words]ReportOct 8, 2002 13:10
"Occupied" Territories [225 words]Gabriel DavidovicsOct 6, 2002 20:17
Let's tackle "political correctness" [156 words]DestinOct 3, 2002 02:51
Ad Hominem [285 words]GeorgeOct 2, 2002 02:41
Settlements [81 words]Jack CaughranOct 1, 2002 19:48
The crux of the arguments [417 words]Fred HauptmanOct 1, 2002 17:38
Arafat's secret bank accounts [24 words]PhilipOct 1, 2002 16:30
Fighting off an Ambush [38 words]Steven MalynnOct 1, 2002 16:24
An Important Point that Must be Reiterated Over and Over [368 words]David MinkinOct 1, 2002 15:14
Thank you for standing up for the truth! [179 words]RachelOct 1, 2002 13:21
Typical Militant Muslim Psyche [39 words]Hari IyerOct 1, 2002 12:20
No Peace for Terrorists and Their Supporters [92 words]Jon AlvarezOct 1, 2002 11:48
ABUNIMAH's personal attacks [21 words]Rusty MasonOct 1, 2002 09:51
Blind Hate [74 words]Mark FeldsteinSep 30, 2002 18:09
Beating A Dead Horse [326 words]Gershon ben DanielSep 30, 2002 16:18
In addition... [116 words]Ben ShniperSep 30, 2002 15:12

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page