I agree with what you have to say on this. ad hominem by circumstance is a tricky position to pin down. To say that someone is wrong because they are a drunkard would be ad hominem. To say that someone cannot testify about a specific crime because they were drunk at the crime scene would be ad hominem by circumstance. The problem is that people usually do not see the difference between these two and assume that it's okay to attack someone's character to disprove them.

The reason that I put the taste of conservatives, liberals, and the first amendment is because we are allowed to say whatever we want to say against someone. Often the conversations that happen on here are between conservatives and liberals; therefore, I thought it best to give an example that shows an attack on both sides.

The other problem we face is that one person's fact is another person's fiction. For example the argument between religious people and atheists tends to get very nasty because both claim to be using facts, which they can only know as facts from a subjective view at best.

That's a good point. That way people can be held responsible for what they say.

The ad hominem attacks never end.... ;+)

Bren, I like where this is going. On the same token, gradual change can be in a more harmful direction. I view conservatives and liberals as necessary but not always sufficient checks and balances. So I guess what I'm saying is that even if you disagree with right-wing talking points, don't you think that they have a purpose where we should consider these positions with care?

Right Andrew, and lefties are right once a century.

I agree that the internet shouldn't be taken too seriously; however, if I were to call your statement ludicrous and stupid, then wouldn't you take offense to my comment. I think there should be respect on the internet between individuals even if we are all playing around. Governmental regulation isn't necessary as a form of formal control; however, informal regulations that rely on ostracizing and reputation seem to be important in any social situation.

No, personally I wouldn't. I've been on the internet way too long now and know what when talking politics, I will be called all sorts of names, most that I have been called over and over. I applaud when a new original insult is created.

Most websites are moderated to a level that the admin sees fit. These are private companies and should not have big government looking over them.

So what you're saying is that we should lower our standards of respect and treat each other in less humane ways for our own personal amusement? I am not suggesting government control as much as putting each other to task for what we say. Insults show a lack of humanity and a form of ignorance due to a lack of having anything intelligent to say. I back this up by asking, do insults really add to our knowledge or does it break down our ability to communicate meaningfully?

Steve, have you ever heard of the Pooh-Pooh fallacy? It's an argument used to dismiss another claim with ridicule as not worthy of serious consideration. It's a refusal to examine an argument seriously and evaluate it fairly. "As such the fallacy is an attempt to obtain by guile what should be earned by work. It is a case of misdirection" (Munson & Black).

Shades of gray.
I don't think Mister Spock was a great communicator and I think he would have said our human behavior is highly illogical. We are, after all, human. I only know of one Vulcan that posts on Patch and he is only a political Vulcan, so he still has human flaws. Even the great Nobel Peace Prize recipients amongst us, tend to be easy with the insults. I guess it really comes down to the timeless words of Roseanne Roseannadanna "Well, Jane, it just goes to show you, it's always something--if it ain't one thing, it's another." And life goes on.

Perhaps they should, but there are legitimate reasons why someone would not want to use their real names/pictures that have nothing to do with the content of what they post online.

I'm with Steve on this. It's the internet. It's highly unregulated, completely lacking in standards and, as such, one of the last entertainment venues that hasn't been whittled down into a formless, bland lump of mediocrity by the PC police. Don't take it so seriously.

Use of a real name and photo is very unwise. First rule of the internet. The people with whom you will interact are mostly sane, but there's always that one person who may not be 'all there'.

There are those here who use their real names. There are others who use pseudonyms but take care to maintain their reputations for civility under most circumstances.

To address your point, hate speech must never be criminalized, but that does not mean it has to be accepted with tolerance and respect.

Couldn't disagree more. We saw lots of intimidation from the left here in Wisconsin this year (up to and including death threats and physical assault). A friend of mine got death threats for a letter to the editor in the journal sentinel. Paul is just inviting people to become targets - leading to suppression of their ideas.

That's not what you intended is it Paul? Running off those who disagree with you?

The fundamental difference between established media reporting and citizen journalism (blogging, etc.) is that citizens do not have access to many of the protections afforded professional reporters.

That or perhaps we the people should put down such statements as ad hominem. I'm not clear where we can take it but I feel that banning certain commentators from seeing what we blog/post may be a solution.

I'm looking more for Informal sanctions rather than governmental control. It's a more likely solution, because government has a difficult time keeping up with technology.

Its pretty dangerous that you so casually conjoin censorship and government the same sentence. There's already some pretty serious physical intimidation going on in political environments. Did you see the near assault on Congressman Ryan yesterday?

Sorry, but I have repeatedly experienced lefties telling me that my political positions and opinions are hate speech as just another debating technique. The best antidote to bad speech is more speech.

@red, I do not think I casually conjoin government and censorship in the same sentence. Informal sanctions are social sanctions and not governmental sanctions. I think that more speech to counter bad speech could result in a snowball effect. I guess constructive speech rather than critically negative speech would be a good antidote.

At what point would you say that it's okay to say a lefty or a righty is radical? I've been called a radical by both lefties and righties. I tend to define hate speech based on a social science perspective, but that still doesn't remove the subjective viewpoint of the person receiving potentially hateful/critical (depending on the viewer reception of such comments) statements.

That sounds like a good solution. Unfortunately, that is a trait I have a hard time exercising.

I would in person, but if the Internet could punch someone, I would use that as well.

Mike, I think they are meaningless to some people, but I would like to believe that meaningful conversations can also involve meaningful criticisms. So what you are saying is that an insult is simply a form of fluff that contains absolutely no meaning.

Rhetoric may show that to be the case. On the other hand, speech acts serve a purpose to communicate meaning. For example, I perform a speech act towards you with an intended meaning an expected response. The purpose of an insult is to both upset and criticize another individual regardless of the location. If you insult someone on the internet, then are you saying that an insult no longer has this intent?

I am really tired of being attacked by people with masks on. Moreover, I have suggested in blogs that people not say anything they would not say over a table in a coffee shop to the other party.... to remember, in other words, that they are actually addressing a human being, not an abstraction.

You seem more agitated and more ornery than usual Kief, what is wrong? Did you fail to obtain more government loans from the dupes at Shorewood Village hall? Are your various ponzi schemes not working well? Just relax Keif, have some more Aldi cake and pudding and take a nap.

@Keith -- that would leave me out, because Facebook requires a person to use their actual name, and their security is not the best. I won't have a Facebook for that reason. I don't think you meant to include me in the 'right-wing sewer' comment, but thatrule would cut both ways.

Keith:

The 'sewer' isn't limited to one side of the aisle around here. I agree with Randy about the Facebook thing. I won't have a Facebook either.

We built the sewers

Patch could just ban Keif and the majority of the problem would be gone. His post above clearly illustrates his contempt for not only this site, but many of the good people that post here.

@ Keith, although this would be a solution, I have to agree with the others that it is not an option. Facebook would need to drastically improve their security for all of us to consider that option. Furthermore, liberals can be pretty nasty as well. Cleaning up the sewers shouldn't be conjoined with a political stance in this case.

As an example of how the 'Facebook' solution will not work to bring things 'out of the sewer', take a look at the stuff the Keith Schmitz routinely posts under his true name and picture.

Many sites use Facebook for comments to prevent the kinds of out of control nonsense we get from the right wing.

My my dung, we are a sensitive little flower aren't we.

Pretty much 90% of the activity on this blog is from sullen, angry, out of control conservatives, especially in Shorewood where the righties feel marginalized.

Just love it how you all whine when you get called out by an aggressive liberal.

Keith:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Feel free to point out where I have been insulting, rude, sullen, angry, or out of control, Keith. I missed the part where you called me out as well...

Keith, i do not see any statistics here other than a possible guess that you would like to be in your favor. I want to know why liberals and conservatives are not both at fault for such aggressive fallacies as ad hominem. Ad hominem removes any validity from an argument. I am not saying you are committing one here; however, I think you are making a hasty generalization against those who disagree with you.

CD, Keith's just lashing out due to some internal conflict he's experiencing over a victory that resulted from a voting pattern not unlike that found in the deep south in the late '60s. He'll settle down eventually.

Accessing this awesome site through a facebook account is worthless if you want to eliminate anonymity because I have 3 fake accounts with that to go along with my 3 on here.

@Nuitari...Why do you need so many fake accounts? What are you hiding?

Deep south? You are an amusing doofus Bob.

Nut's multiple accounts reflect his black copter paranoia, and lack of guts.

Keith, eventually you're going to have to own it rather than lashing out in all directions. I know it stings, particularly since one of your favorite past times here is race baiting. Numbers don't lie and, try as you might, you can't spin them in any fashion that makes Shorewood look good.

The chickens have come home to roost.

Keith hasn't accused anyone of being a racist for 30 minutes. A new record!

I have all these aliases so I can F with you liberals and not fear you picketing my home, harassing my family or possibly murdering me. DUH

If someone has murdered you, I can see why you'd need an alias...

If all that cumulative Shorewood brain power,located in just that one tiny tiny square mile(bubble), gets together they can figure out how to spin, er, rationalize, ummmm... explain that election.

@Brian Carlson...This is a constant problem. There are certain participants who troll under a variety of identities just to trash others. It seems to me that the worst offenders have been those on the extreme right. I can't say for certain but I notice some with the same writing style and vocabulary under different handles. My approach is to stay on message as much as possible and ignore those who are particularly offensive.

I hope you just scramble the letters in your name, so that we will always know that it is indeed you, Brian. Or, would that be Brain Noslrac. Maybe you could write a book: 'The Eight Faces of Brain Noslrac'.

It took me a while to ignore the background noise, but like Lyle said 'stay on message'. Your life experiences and perspective comes through quite well in your writing. Unfortunately, some here don't understand that one can learn more from those that see life through a lens different than our own.

I'd add, smile and keep a great sense of humor about.

Ditto

"I hope you just scramble the letters in your name, so that we will always know that it is indeed you, Brian."

Splendid idea! ~signed Danry1499

Same writing style? You mean that some of us on the Left can spell, use punctuation, and employ big words? And, pray, what is your definition of weak?