Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: personal attack

Sort By:

Limit search:

Satyra antyczna a współczesne standardy prawne wypowiedzi prasowej

100%

Gontarski W.

Studia Iuridica

2016

vol. 61

53-126

The contemporary truth which applies to journalists (as required by the Council of Europe standards and domestic law) reflects differences between the essence and criterion of Aristotelian truth (material truth – veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus – ad Aristotle, The Metaphysics IV.7. [1011b 26‒27]), and its practical implementation (objective truth – in medio stat veritas – ad Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics II.7. [1108a 19‒20]). A journalist is obliged to reconstruct the objective truth (the truth ascertainable by a man who meets the Roman law standard of diligentia boni patris familias, here referred to as diligence expected of a responsible journalist) and not the material truth. Nonetheless, a substantial discrepancy between this journalistic truth and the material truth will constitute a sufficient reason for statutory rectification. As regards the assessing statements, as well as the satirical ones, the proof of truth is only required if the assessment is a conclusion derived from descriptive statements, i.e. the factual basis, and that conclusion must be logical (proportional and therefore just). Satire may not contain words commonly considered as offensive. If a satirical statement is to enjoy the legal protection, it cannot amount to a mere personal attack. Regardless of the fact that satire is a negative assessment and an exaggerated one, it must derive from application of facts, meaning that it must reflect the reality and in that sense it can neither attack human dignity nor contain any discriminatory statements, as confirmed by the latest case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Analogical conclusions can be reached upon reading the works of Romanian satirists, for instance Horace.

Argument ad hominem, argument ad personam i atak osobisty – analiza porównawcza

100%

Pruś J.

Res Rhetorica

2023

vol. 10

issue 2

47-73

Many contemporary sources, from online critical thinking courses to logic textbooks by influential authors, seem to miss the important difference between three different concepts: ad hominem arguments, ad personam arguments, and ad personam (personal) attacks. The first of them, for many centuries called ad hominem or ex concessis, refers to what the interlocutor considers to be true or what he admitted in an earlier conversation. The second type appeals to some personal properties of a given person in order to undermine their position. The third, personal attacks, are eristic maneuvers aimed at discrediting or embarrassing the interlocutor. These three concepts warrant precise formulation, and their consistent use seems necessary both in the theory of argumentation and in public discourse. The paper presents argumentation schemes and evaluation criteria for both types of arguments, in accordance with the standards adopted in informal logic. The characteristics of personal attacks, their subtypes and defensive strategies have also been developed. The study is supported by examples from political debate.

Wiele współczesnych źródeł, od internetowych kursów krytycznego myślenia do podręczników do logiki uznanych autorów, zdaje się pomijać istotną różnicę między trzema różnymi pojęciami: argumentami ad hominem, argumentami ad personam i atakami ad personam (osobistymi). Pierwsze z nich, nazywane na przestrzeni wieków ad hominem lub ex concessis, odwołują się do tego, co rozmówca uznaje za prawdziwe lub co przyznał we wcześniejszej rozmowie. Drugie z nich odwołują się do jakichś osobistych własności danej osoby celem podważenia jej stanowiska. Z kolei trzecie, tj. ataki lub przytyki osobiste, to po prostu chwyty erystyczne polegające na zdezawuowaniu lub skompromitowaniu rozmówcy. Te trzy pojęcia zasługują na precyzyjne określenie i używanie zarówno w teorii argumentacji, jak i w dyskursie publicznym. W poniższej pracy dla obu rodzajów argumentów sformułowane zostały schematy argumentacyjne oraz kryteria oceny, zgodnie ze standardami przyjętymi w logice nieformalnej. Opracowana została także charakterystyka ataków osobistych, ich typy oraz strategie defensywne. Studium podparte jest przykładami z debaty politycznej.

Refine search results

1 Res Rhetorica

1 Studia Iuridica

1 Gontarski W.

1 Pruś J.

1 2023

1 2016

Search results

Satyra antyczna a współczesne standardy prawne wypowiedzi prasowej

Argument ad hominem, argument ad personam i atak osobisty – analiza porównawcza