> [Krimel] > I suppose I should take solace in the fact that this blathering and the > venom of the right has ramped up a couple of notches like the squealing of > pigs being slaughtered. Perhaps the hand writing is on the wall that these > morons are being cast back into the KKK, John Birch fringe from whence they > came.
[Platt] How droll. No pigs could squeal as loudly as Krimel and Arlo in their frustration at not being able to mount a cogent argument against my conservative views regarding PC, government and individual liberty. Instead they resort to ad hominem attacks which Pirsig describes as not only wrong, but evil. In Lila's Child he writes: [Krimel] As sickening as I find your twisting of even Pirsig's most obscure comments, let me see if I can help put this one into perspective. [Platt, slandering Pirsig] "To say that a comment is "stupid" is to imply that the person who makes it is stupid. This is the "ad hominem" argument: meaning, "to the person." Logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining and you argue that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what does this tell us about the condition of the sun?" [Krimel] What do you think Bob would say if Joe said the sun was shining and you explained to him that is it is not; that it is 11 p.m. and we are not in the polar regions. Then Joe says the sun is shining and you explain to him the meaning of the terms "sun" and "shine" and how light reaches the earth. Then Joe says the sun is shining and you explain how sunlight cannot reach the surface of the earth when we are turned away from it. Then Joe says the sun is shining. You ask Joe to explain what he mean that the sun is shining and he says the sun is shining and you ask him what he means and he says, the sun is shining... At what point are you justified in saying that Joe is an idiot? Because you are way, way past that point. [Platt abusing Pirsig] "That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic texts say about it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what may be an original contribution. It says the ad hominem argument is a form of evil. [Krimel] An ad hominim argument IS irrelevant. The relevant arguments have been made, remade, embellished upon, expanded, and clarified. I understand that your position is weak but it deserves a more thoughtful defense than you are able to mount. Calling you stupid has nothing to do with any political argument it is an observation about you personally and your offensive use of ideological dogma. [Platt inlisting help where none is offered] "The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into four parts: inorganic, biological, and intellectual. Once this analysis is made, the ad hominem argument can be defined more clearly: It is an attempt destroy the intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his social status. In other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to destroy a higher form. [Krimel] If any evidence of an intellectual pattern had ever been found, the ad hominim argument would never have come up. It is the total lack of intellectual content that is at issue. We can't destroy what we can't detect. You are welcome at any point to show some intellectual ability, to make a reasoned argument, to earn even an iota of respect. [Platt] That is evil. [Krimel] What is evil is your ongoing insinuation that Pirsig has anything but contempt for your borrowing of his work. [Platt] Nothing further needs to be said about Krimel and Arlo. [Krimel] Please, Lord, let it be so. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
