I've seen a disturbing trend emerging in the streets over the last few months, specifically either in debate or in the occasion of some civilian, thug, or petty thief showing up on the streets to rant. Broadly, my problem is with ad hominem attacks, which means that you critique an argument not based on the logic or conclusions, but instead on the perceived flaws of the individual making the argument. A more particular example of this has been cropping up more and more frequently in the streets- as the arguments of petty thieves and thugs are dismissed entirely due to their rank, without real consideration of the argument.

To borrow a recent example, a petty thief accused Godmother ScipitaRourke of misspeaking multiple times in a recent speech. As a culture, many of us seem to have adopted a stance that when a low ranked member says something disrespectful or stupid, that they can be immediately dismissed due to their rank.

But while launching a personal attack against a low-ranked ranter may cut them down a peg personally and give a sense of satisfaction to the rest of us, it does nothing against the argument itself. Why not refute the argument and prove them to be an idiot, rather than dismiss the issue entirely without consideration under than banner of "You're just a thug" while the argument continues to hang in the air? Now this is not to say that the burden of proof falls on the accused for every rant that gets launched in the streets, of course. Rather, consider that it can be more effective to engage an argument and defeat it rather than just trying to discredit the source under a questionable dismissal of everyone's opinion who is not Rank X.

Now it's obvious to anyone with a brain, and this has already been mentioned in response to the aforementioned example incident, that when a leader tragically loses their life time is of the essence. The same care in choosing words and ensuring one does not misspeak is not prudent when lives hinge on the ability to clarify a situation immediately. If someone is wrong, surely they can be shown to be wrong and the world will benefit from it.

While I'm not saying this particular petty thief, or any recently, were particularly intelligent or prophetic, I would caution against dismissing an argument based on the rank of the speaker. Words and ideas, after all, can change the world, regardless of their source.

Agreed Godmother Kates.

However, I would make a point of noting that when a member of a bloodline, known to continue on in the manner that the petty thief you brought up does, should he/she have such consideration.

See...while many valid points can be brought up for coolly and quickly dissembling the arguments of the above mentioned ranter, at what point does that regard become pointless? Why fuel egos more so than they already has been?

The comfort of rank is much like Australia. I know that if push comes to shove, I can say to the vast majority of people 'I outrank you, therefore I am right'. Whilst I know this is an option, it is not one I will ever exercise. In much the same way, it is unlikely that I will ever visit Australia.

The is a degree of truth in the 'dismissal due to rank' argument. I'm an old man. Through my life I've dedicated and sacrificed much for our thing. In return, I have been given the distinction of becoming a man of honour. More so, I am a Don of Chicago - the second man of the city. Ultimately,this means that if I tell Graham Gangster that black is white, he better believe me because if my word is the dollar - his isn't even fucken' yen.

However, unlike our forebears in Sicily, ours is a structure which encourages a certain degree of debate and free speech, and whilst dismissing someone based on their rank or stature may be legitimate, it is not the sort of activity that is good for long term business.

That aside, if the only defence you can come up with is to not consider someone's argument based on their rank, it implies that your own argument is weak.

A good question, Quirinius, as to when it becomes pointless to debate people who make accusations like that. I don't speak with any real surety of where that line is- I do know, however, that the line probably exists at least after one attempt to demonstrate their folly rather than dismissing them outright.

And I don't believe it's fueling their egos, necessarily. If anything, you're trying to deflate the ego by efficiently demonstrating to all the flaws in their argument.

Obviously if they've crossed the line of being merely sound and fury, signifying nothing, I would think you either ignore them or drop them in a river.

In trying to deflate, quite often the opposite happens.

Paradoxically, some come to these shores with the sole purpose of making a fuss. These immigrants hate being ignored and then subsequently eliminated. 

One attempt to try is certainly a good place to draw the line. There are always exceptions though.

Most the time its the gangsters and petty thief that speak up now, because there not scared to get kill at a low of a rank, witch if he was a higher rank he might hold his words back a little more

I thoroughly agree with iron here. Sometimes the best criticism comes from those of a low rank because they are not afraid to speak their mind. Whereas someone of higher rank may be fearful to speak up as they fear the loss of their life. However, sometimes they do just try to start a fire and they SHOULD be extinguished.  But those who create a constructive arguement and are of low rank, should not be simply dismissed like Kates said.

I agree with Noah's statement that "if the only defence you can come up with is to not consider someone's argument based on their rank, it implies that your own argument is weak."  There are times when an argument can legitimately be dismissed; perhaps the argument was created simply to agitate the reader and is entirely speculatory.  If an argument is made that is a speculation of an event or it is clear that the author doesn't have enough background information then it might help to encourage further investigation of the issue or to offer the evidence that might have been missing from the original author's argument.  Dismissing the argument because of the rank of a person will encourage misinformation and rumours.

To completely ignore an argument based on rank doesn't support the argument's cause but rather creates a new argument:  the one we are currently discussing right now. 

I don't think arguments are at all important. This isn't a philosophy class. It's the mafia. Who cares if So-and-So's platonic idealist position suffers from the fatal flaw of reification? He's rich and powerful, and either my boss or my rival. If he says gravity is a myth, then so be it. I'm not going to argue against it because I'll get killed. And even if I'm not, who the fuck cares if he's wrong? It has no practical relevance.

Unless, of course, he considers it a wise move to climb out of the top-story window.

I didn't say that all arguments are important, Anonimouse. But some of them are. There have been debates and arguments in the streets about wars, member-whoring, shooting certain unsponsored gangsters, and all manner of topics that relate to our business and have a great deal of "physical relevance". Hardly an abstract philosophy class.

This is also not to say that we live in a society where our free speech is guaranteed and we all have fluffy pillows and bunnies. You do not, generally, present logical arguments when your boss orders you to do something.

But we do have debates in these streets, since our time here is the totality of our existence. And in those debates dismissing someone solely due to their rank is something that is neither efficient nor useful, nor logical. Which is what I am discussing... not Plato.

Although if you'd LIKE to debate Plato with me, I'll surely meet you in the business district somewhere, where it would be more appropriate.