Platt inserted ... On 7/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Platt, I don't need lectures from you on "ad hominem". > > The lecture was from Pirsig in case you didn't notice. [Ian] Of course I noticed, you even cited the quote, that's why I didn't need it; I'm as familiar with it as you are, and it was irrelevant to my point. However "in case you didn't notice" is (ad hominem) suggesting I'm stupid.
> > > I've NEVER called you or your points "stupid". > > I quite legitimately say you are evil and dishonest, and constantly > > engaing in ad hominem digs. I (and Arlo it seems) choose to point out > > that dishonesty. > > To say I am evil and dishonest is an ad hominem attack. It "does not tell us > about the condition of the sun." [Ian] Good, I wasn't talking about the sun, I was talking about your morals. You were the subject of my argument. That has nothing to do with ad hominem. > > > Platt, I referred to Arlo and myself, because those were the three > > people involved in the point ... ie I was talking to you about Arlo's > > mail .... so, yes I'm saying Arlo and I are on the OK side of you > > (IMHO natch). > > > > It's only you I'm expressing opinions about, everyone else is err ... > > OK by me ... that is they are not the subject of any points in this > > correspondence. > > But you do include yourself and Arlo as being "representative" of this > forum do you not? And you do think your words are OK, right? [Ian] More representative of its values than you, more OK than you, if you must. No absolute truths here. > > So pat yourself on the back. It's nice to have an ego. [Ian] So again Platt, pat yourself on the back ... ATFQ - where did I ever call you "stupid" - you immoral, ignorant liar ? I'm not suggesting that as part of some rhetorical trick, I'm explicitly asserting it. On second thoughts don't bother to ATFQ, and I won't bother. Ian > > Platt > > > On 7/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > 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/
