Keats ambles through the streets, as is his custom. He was getting older, but he was still in good shape. He could have been twenty years younger, except for the lines that creased around his eyes and the silver that streaked along his temples. He had made long walks a habit, as they allowed him to gather his thoughts. Occasionally he'd get distracted and slip his hand into a particularly enticing pocket, but mostly he just tried to take stock of his own life: what to accomplish in the near future, what to save for later, whose graves to leave a new bunch of flowers at, new business ventures, and particular young women who'd entered his life and made things rather interesting for him in such varied ways.

He also listened, though, to the various discussions taking place on street corners. Noticing a trend, Keats leaned against a brick wall of a nearby shop and addressed a small group of people.

I've noticed a disturbing pattern lately in the streets- something I thought it could be beneficial for some to hear. I'd like to be absolutely clear here that I'm not calling out a particular person or referring to a particular discussion; the behavior I discuss is something I've seen dozens of examples of during my life.

My topic today is ad hominem arguments- particularly with relation to rank. For those of you who aren't familiar, there's a latin phrase: "argumentum ad hominem". The very rough general translation is "argument against the man". In other words, it's when you attack the person giving an opposing argument instead of the argument itself.

So how the hell does some concept that's thousands of years old affect our business? Why do effective arguments affect our particular line of work? Because in these streets we have a forum where discussions and debates are common, and I see this logical fallacy happening all around us.

Some young civilian or thug or gangster shows up and makes an argument, and is immediately shot down entirely due to their rank. I hope you can see the problem with that: anyone who dismisses an argument due to the person making it is not dealing with the actual argument itself. 

And let me be clear- rank matters in our world. It's one of the defining qualities of this way of life. So if you tell a thug they should shut up talking about a Made Man because they're just a thug, you are absolutely correct. But you're still not dealing with the actual argument that thug is making- and perhaps people listening to this exchange may take note of that. If all you can say to a criticism is "You're not allowed to talk", it's not the strongest defense. I also don't believe that anyone should feel obligated to defend himself or herself against any random idiot in the streets- and even if they make a single response, I acknowledge that sometimes people are just going to be idiots and continue to rant and there's no use engaging them. So with those caveats, my point remains that if one IS going to engage these people in the streets, they should do it in a way that actually makes an effective argument.

So lets look at a hypothetical example to illustrate what I'm talking about here. 

Imagine a civilian appears- a very salty civilian. Perhaps they are full of false righteous anger and believe they could do better at running the world, perhaps their father or mother had just died, or perhaps they simply woke up on the wrong side of the bed. For whatever reason, imagine this thug appears in the streets and starts spewing all sorts of venom at your leader . They might say "So and so is a shitty leader- they're just sitting on their ass while their family does the work for them and they reap the benefits- they're a lazy, stupid bum!"

Now, if I heard this about my leader I'd be pretty pissed off.

So what do I reply? "Shut the hell up, you whining thug. You shouldn't even be saying this because you've accomplished nothing with your life. My boss is so far above you that you're just scum on the bottom of their shoe!"? It'd certainly be tempting. It'd make me feel pretty important to cut this person down a peg. As I mentioned before, rank does matter in this world... but couldn't you actually engage the argument?

Couldn't you point to your boss's street activity and praise their presence? Mention a particularly effective speech that they made? Show that they chime in regularly and try to be active in the business district? Personally attest to a difficult situation that your boss helped you solve? Mention the positive things they've contributed to the community? Couldn't you mention the dozens of people who you believe would take a bullet for their boss, and point out that this loyalty isn't earned by people who sit there and do nothing? You obviously shouldn't be talking about the private information of your family- but you could actually engage the argument of this thug and shut him or her down. 

Not every crazy accusation necessarily obligates the elite of this world to step out and answer a civilian. However, if you're going to do it... try to do it in a way that refutes the argument- and not just dismisses the source. 

My thoughts on the topic of just random attacks on leaders from thugs and civilians come in 3 different scenarios as to why they happen which are the following: 

Firstly rank doesn't matter nearly as much as you think as a lot times it's who your bloodline is that lets you get away with far more than you probably should. The logic here is "oh it's so and so they always get super salty when they die and do this no point in doing anything about it" or it's a respected mobster that sometimes needs to just get the salt out before their bloodline can rejoin and be a productive member of our society again. 

Secondly people are literally so arrogant as to not care especially if they feel like they're being bloodlined or killed for no go reason they might just say "fuck it" I can't do anything else so might as well throw a hissy fit in the streets. They can't actually do anything in the realm of changing things so they lash out the only way they can which is through attacking the character of those who "wronged" them.

Thirdly and I know this was the case for some past leaders, the people on top don't care enough to enforce anything about it because giving them any recognition is pretty much what they want. These are people that literally want to drag the people in power down to their level to have petty arguments with them and a lot of time leaders just don't because let's be honest with the amount of work they've put in they're better than that.

Pretty much all three of these ones show that a lot of times they're not looking for a reason or an actual argument but rather just to attack in the only way they feel like they can.

For the ones however that to bring up logical well thought out arguments and are shut down however those are people that the higher ups should be engaging with because it's a good way for them to gain some introspective as well simmer down some situations before they become attacks from others. These situations are opportunities for actual debate to occur when you're conversing or attacking subject matter and ideas rather than the person(s) involved and thus where progress comes from.

Just some thoughts, regards.

Captain Malcolm Reynolds

Perhaps they shoot down the source, because they can't provide any actual reason/evidence for rebutting the questions asked.

I've mentioned on other street corners my dismay at the fact that we are currently at a time where people only seem interested in quickly cutting down a "troll."

It's an easy way out. An easy way to make street appearances with minimum effort and an easy way to not be made to look like an imbecile on the streets.  

Whilst I understand the concepts you're conveying here, Keats, I'm not entirely sure that it is all as black and white as you claim it is. 

Most of the times I or my ancestors witnessed public out cries by civilians, petty thieves and thugs, it tends comes after wars. Or some sort of take down where people are upset about their parents and or family being murdered. They usually believe that it was unjust, unfair and something those responsible ought to be shamed or ranted at for. In those cases (which i believe to be the majority of times people are publicly silenced due to their rank) being dismissive of the lower members of society is more a response to unbridled anger they're only capable of getting away with or brave enough to try BECAUSE of their low standing, because they've nothing to lose or simply can't be touched. 

The only arguments I genuinely think are attacking the member of society based on their position or "rank" as opposed to tackling their well reasoned arguments is when, let's say 'Joe Bloggs' comes out of the wood works and methodically explains how he or she believes the upper structure could or should be doing things. They express an opinion, maybe offer some facts and offer examples to back up their case, THEN the response from others is to respond with "rank up and do something about it". I usually take notice and bite my tongue at the people replying with that, as I feel frustrated on behalf of the person who spent their time expressing a well reasoned argument only to be told "you're too short to fight back so go away before i poke your eye some more you nerd"

Besides the issue of attacking someone based on their rank, instead of the argument they make, would be blood line related. There a few notable mentions on this one. "a man from a bloodline that needs no introduction to these Streets.  " As stated in another recent street appearance. The almost immediate response was to shut the concept down that it must be a terrible idea, not because it is a terrible idea but because of who the idea is coming from. 

I personally find ranty ramblings in public an amusing distraction from the mundane slog of grinding away for cash and prestige, however all too many others would rather continue on in silence than to indulge in some banter, no matter the level of thought provocation.

As well as Mr. Kuku, and I'm uncertain whether another well known blood line would mind me using her as an example of the same topic, but the "Melis" bloodline or Cin as that family's current head, usually comes out with thought provoking questions but rather than tackle the issues themselves I've heard too often that it's "Melis" rather than "I disagree with what was said and here's why".

Despite it being an annoyance to see some of the more public speakers not being given a fair chance, based on who they are in society or who their parents were, I am never the less fairly optimistic that our society doesn't gravitate towards prejudice and do offer an ear regardless of who it is actually speaking. I also don't feel that we really do as a group make such snap decisions about the majority of ideas shared in the streets and coffee shops. At least, not so much as to need to question our society as a whole about using the mature and awesome "argumentum ad hominem" technique you brought to our attention.

I'm especially glad that the converse hasn't been an issue either. That just because "Godfather Joe Bloggs" who comes from a family of high ranking bloggs's states that such is such, that everyone accepts it matter of factly without bothering to question further. Not sure if there's a latin phrase to cover this, but it'd be the opposite of arguing the man, just nut jumping the man and avoiding any criticism of the argument.

I guess to summarise Keats I don't believe that "argumentum ad hominem" is really that much of an issue in our streets, and I of course base that solely on my opinion of you and the fact you have smelly feet, also you probably support another sports team to me... or something? 

Madara winks, although because there's only one eye showing through the mask it just looks like he's blinking normally.

Keats listens as a few people chime in with their own thoughts, turning to each as he replies.

MalcolmReynolds,

I think we're both on the same page here. As I mentioned in my original speech, responding effectively to an argument assumes that there is actually something of substance to respond to- the rantings of a madman don't necessarily deserve the same treatment, of course. Your larger point is well made; I think you've broken down the situation well on the whole. 

HenrySestern,

Your point that they simply cut down the source because they can't beat the argument is an interesting idea. As I mentioned, when this happens people can be left to wonder whether the argument itself was valid if the speaker was the only aspect being attacked. Thanks for contributing your analysis here.

Madara,

In the instances you mentioned- young  descendants of those cut down in wars- it's of course wise to take any issues raised in the streets with a grain of salt. But again, if your only response to a logical, well made argument is "you're just bitter" one doesn't actually deal with the content of what was said. And I'm of course not referring to ranting, wild, irrational street shouting here. 

Your example of "rank up and do something about it" is quite a good one- thanks for bringing that to bear here.

But I think your inclusion of bloodlines into this subject is equal or better to the application of rank. The history of a bloodline does not determine whether what they're saying is right or wrong. There's a certain level of trust and respect, of course, for bloodlines that have spent generations on these shores building up good will and gaining honor in the eyes of the community- but you're correct in saying that this valuation of the speaker over the speech is quite common as well.

I don't believe this is necessarily an epidemic that is crumbling our foundation, but having noticed it- I wanted to say my piece. You are, of course, free to disagree whether you believe it's truly an issue or not...

... regardless of the status of my feet.

Keats smirks.