Quoting ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > As I already pointed out Platt, that's not Ad Hominem in fact, but > what would you care, so long as you can get in another prejudiced > twisted dig at the motives of others.
"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? "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. 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. That is evil. "However the MOQ suggests that this only an intellectual evil. In politics, for example, to identify your political opponent as a former Nazi is not evil if he really was a Nazi, because politics is a dominantly social activity rather than an intellectual activity." Pirsig, Note 140 Lila's Child > Nowhere do I (or Arlo) suggest I (or we) are any kind of special > representatives. I was talking about you. (I offer Arlo support as one > individual human to another.) When you accuse me of not being representative you imply that you and Arlo are. In other words, yours and Arlo's words are OK, mine are not OK. That's your shtick. > And, everyone please note, as predicted Platt did not even address the > question. > The evidence stands. The question unanswered. Arlo answered the question himself. > On 7/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoting ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > [Platt] > > > > Well, at least you admit you're no gentleman. Why are we not surprised? > > > > > > > > [Arlo] > > > > No, with you I am not. Who would be surprised? But I think everyone > > > > knows > that > > > > its only your constant hypocrisy and talk-radio distortions the draw my > ire. > > > > > > > > > > "NOT WITH YOU" Platt. I sometimes rise to your mastery of baiting too > > > ... the reality is that the subject of this thread is Platt's > > > morality. I've made the point before that Platt is amoral, which on > > > the subject of morality makes him an immoral, hypocritical, evil > > > distortionist. > > > > > > Platt will call that personal abuse, and probably try to invoke the > > > "ad hominem" technical defense ... but of course Arlo's (and my > > > arguments) with him are far from ad hominem. Platt is the subject of > > > the argument. > > > > > > I sometimes ask myself "why do you bother Arlo ?" And I know the > > > answer. If Platt's hypocrisies were left unchallenged, and not > > > called-out for the garbage they are, his words may stand as > > > representative of this discussion board. [Platt] > > Just more ad hominem attacks. Ho hum. Note the arrogance: Arlo and Ian > > preening as immaculate representatives of this discussion board. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
