------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May
There is no better, value for money, guest house.
Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Peter,
Aum supurlo Goenkar mhunon, I did as you suggested. I did a search on
"Argumentum Ad Hominem". I immediately discovered the cause for the
incomprehension (or as other side would call fallacy) of your comment.
Firstly, this title is in Latin. Now why would atheists know Latin?:=)) Tum
amkam sang? Magir, this topic is Philosophy 103 (see below).
These guys still have to pass Philosophy 101 - Introduction to Logic. That is
because, they write anything on any subject, and against anybody. When proven
incorrect, they call it "satire". Some "filter facts" to distort the
opponent's writings or create a demon of a situation or person. Then, they
abuse the demon with "upper class" English. How can you go wrong?
For a long time others and myself have been the victim of Santosh's and
Cornel's "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" attacks. This is, "occasionally, this
argument is called the 'argument from prestige' and is based on the belief that
prestigious people cannot be wrong. In these cases, the fallacy is best termed
the 'snob appeal' variety." See Goanet archives on the "Goan Inquisition" and
"Caste among Goans".
Because of these techniques, some have given them accolades. Yet as I wrote,
"One cannot fool all people all the time". Once again thanks for the
"Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic".
Kind Regards, GL
Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
Argumentum Ad Hominem
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking
the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or
an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the
soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a
personal attack.
------------- Peter D'Souza wrote:
Hello Gilbert,
Santosh Helekar is convincing no one, I suspect, by throwing mud on my source
(answers.org) or me (by suggesting that I have not read the sources that I
refer to).
A nice read for those Goanet spectators who feel like they get tugged in
opposite directions in a debate would be from a Wikipedia search of the terms
"argumentum ad hominem" and "argumentum ad verecundiam". Once you recognise
these forms of logic at work, you will quickly be able to filter facts from
hype and be able to take a stand for the right.
----------------------- Gilbert Lawrence wrote:
Those who cannot produce quotes of Hitler to contradict what you have posted,
will try the usual subterfuge of questioning your sources. They should post the
right quotes, if they disagree with your post. Anything less is just
intellectual baloney.
You make my point that some researchers (especially those who claim to be one)
and writers have an agenda. And they selectively quote publications including
from the web, or look at very selected data, based on their agenda. And as
your post shows again, that some love to distort the facts to try to make their
case.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
