the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
--
Do you see the difference?
David.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:39
PM
Subject: R
From the American Heritage dictionary:
As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to r
AIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:11:35 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
Now that?s another ad hom for JD. Still zero for DM. iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, Jul
Now that’s another ad hom for
JD. Still zero for DM. iz
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005
7:14 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
ad-hominem discussion
Absolutly
omething "other than" His words -- but He is something IN ADDITION to His words.
Jd
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:44:13 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk
ct: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John, David's wording of "using yet another one of your meaningless tautologies" instead of something less directed, does sound more emotional in nature than had he said simply "using a tautology" [the word "meaningless" is
us Christ.
>
> Grace to You
>
> JD
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:46:51 -0400
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
>
>
> J
vid's whole tone is
> such.
> >Webster says what he says. And that is the sense in which I use
> the
> >wording. David believes that you can separate the words of an
> opponent
> >from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom.
> I
Sorry, there will be no resolution as stated by JD in another POST, he
sees others as his "OPPONENTS"
Game Set Match...
--- Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ... I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted
> comments.
>
> John,
>
>Your
e
wording. David believes that you can separate the words of an opponent
from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom.I do
not.
JD
-Original Message-
From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wed, 20 Jul
This is really interesting JD.
How is it that noone believes the same of
God?
When it comes to God - you say His Words are doctrine
and He is something other
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:41:21 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perry, do you understand that such a defense would arrive at
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:27:04 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ... I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted comments. John, Your statement above is a good start at resolving t
20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John, I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John. All discussion contains some form of logic, some form of argumentation, especially when our goal is to present and support a point of view. In it's si
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted comments.
John,
Your statement above is a good start at resolving this issue. I think
your best defense would be to argue the point that your comment was not a
"meaningless tautology", bringing in evidence to
:46:51 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John wrote:
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php
> --- if you must get more complicated.
How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The word
"complicated" has the implication t
John,
I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John. All
discussion contains some form of logic, some form of argumentation,
especially when our goal is to present and support a point of view. In it's
simplist form the ad hominem argument is merely an appeal to emotion rathe
John wrote:
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php
> --- if you must get more complicated.
How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The word
"complicated" has the implication that it cannot be understood by digging in
deeper. The word "thorough" implies that
cal charge of "meaningless tautology."
JD -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:54:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
One of the best discussions I have rea
: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:54:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
One of the best discussions I have read on ad-hominem is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem. Perry >From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@
One of the best discussions I have read on ad-hominem is on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem.
Perry
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To:
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:56:11 -0400
John wrote:
> For the
myth (there is no
basis for this comment outside of subjectivity in terms of a
priori, radical philosophical dualism' : (e.g.) 'i,
individually, not as part of any school of thought oppose you for the sole
reason that my reading of reality is totally correct while and you can't
grasp its ab
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgSent: Sun, 29 May 2005 05:24:16 -0400Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
I am totally different from you JD in many areas; in fact at times I think the onl
John wrote:
> These problems -- did they include Deegan
> and his use of the word "liar?"
Yes.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.
These problems -- did they include Deegan and his use of the word "liar?" -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:48:53 -0400Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Izzy wrote:
>> Calling DM “nuts” is an ad ho
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Tuesday, 21 December, 2004 11.24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem arguments
This is why we have a moderator. Ideally, we want the moderator to be the
only one to address t
ad hominem adv.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents'
motives.
Usage Note: As the
principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of
ad hominem was originally the person to
ShieldsFamily wrote:
Slade, Thanks for the perspective about
clean/unclean. How do you think
that translates to today? Are we to cast the bread of the word out to
anyone/everyone? Or was that just for Jesus to discriminate? Izzy
Just a qui
Slade, Thanks for the perspective about clean/unclean. How do you think
that translates to today? Are we to cast the bread of the word out to
anyone/everyone? Or was that just for Jesus to discriminate? Izzy
Was Yeshua calling the woman a
dog? No. Please note she was
Hello, David.
I would like to point out something here in this
thread.
A mistake made in this
thread was taking an event that
occurred 2,000 years ago and removing the cultural significance behind it (replacing it with modern culture from the
USA). By doing so, the "threader" risks causing
To all:
This post focuses much on the personalities of Chris and myself. I
apologize in advance if it is boring to many of you. Just hit the
delete key before proceeding if you don't have time for this. I simply
feel that I must at least give an effort to communicate with Chris,
especially abou
\o/ !HALALU Yah!
\o/
Greetings in the Matchless Name of
YahShua !
OK, now for some "attention to detail" in case any legitimate scientists or
scholars are paying any attention
...
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller"
Sent: 05/13/2004 4:05 PM
Sub
Note:
Another point I forgot to make - this women got some crumbs and we who are God's
Covenant people through Christ are not even getting that these days. Anytime you've
got to depend on food additives etc. you're not walking in Covenant blessings. In fact
you're no better off than the world
Chris wrote:
> "Truth, Adonay, yet bitches eat of the crumbs
> which fall from their masters' table."
> Was that an "ad hominem" from The Saviour? No.
> Was that an insult from The Saviour. Yes, and
> one of a very degrading nature.
Apparently I missed this one but you've done it again. I'd t
Chris wrote:
> Y'all have such great difficulty even knowing
> what "ad hominem" is. Y'all identify "name
> calling" as "ad hominem" ... 'tain't necessarily
> so. Y'all identify "calling a spade a spade" as
> "ad hominem" ... t'ain't never so.
Whether or not Jesus called people names is not
I'm neither in nor from Arkansas. Not that it matters ... you're talking to me about
backwoods health care folk tales and you want to denigrate Arkansas! ROTFLMHO!!!
jt: I'm not denigrating anything, just saying that your way is the cultural norm in
that State. Could be wrong about where you
UR)
Baruch
YHVH,
(Bless The
LORD)
Chris
Barr
a servant of
YHVH
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 05/13/2004 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] "ad
hominem"?
> Got to be careful not to add meaning that was
never intended here and at
Dogs have been considered in the same manner as by my African brother going back into
antiquity. It is actually a strong precept from ScriptureA mother in Scripture
had a daughter possessed by a demon. The mother sought YahShua to cast out the demon.
Wouldn't you think that The Saviour w
Chris wrote:
> An ad hominem argument is one where the presenter
> is addressed rather than the message.
> Joe: 1 + 1 = 3
> John: Joe is an idiot.
> THAT is ad hominem.
> If John responded with the mathematical theorem that
> exposes the error of Joe's statement and thereby reveals
> Jo
Judy: He was wrong when he said that "short people
got no reason for livin'" However when the consensus is that you are vertically
challenged and you live in denial, well...Lance PS: How does it go? If the shoe
fits..
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL P
If you did post that prior to your stament to Judy that non-beleivers can go
to heaven, then I missed it, and in that case apologize for saying you did
not explain it.
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rul
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> Blaine,
>
>Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH
> said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he
> knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS
> believe there are three. H
MAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:31 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
> Blaine wrote to Perry: > > Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? > > You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, > > and p
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:31
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem
rule
> Blaine wrote to Perry: > > Are
you saying either DaveH or I deliberatel
level by level, or as the Lord would say, grace for grace.- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:57 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem
rule> Blaine,>> Yes. Either that, o
ROTFLOL!
I can see it now.
If the LDS were deliberately using words with double meanings would they when questioned about it, turn around and say:
"OK we fess up we are using SUBTERFUGE"
For Blaine, attacking false doctrine is comparable to a "personal attack"
In general, I have found LDS to
ly-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:58:21 -0700
Blaine: Hmm, I understand what you are saying Perry, and I sense your
frustration. Maybe we have really been throwing you guys some curves, it
sounds like. LOL
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
> Blaine,
>
>Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH
> said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that
he
> knows that Ch
Blaine wrote to Perry:
> Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead?
> You seem to be implying this in some of your posts,
> and particularly this one.
Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a little
latitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a
Blaine,
Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH
said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he
knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS
believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since no
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March
23, 2003 7:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ad
hominem remarks
Marlin, liars go to hell. I am calling you a
liar. I did not
Izzy, with all due respect. You are blinded to your double standard. If someone is in favor of Saturday worship, even to the point of requiring it in order to be in right standing with God, you see no problem in how they write.
But if one strands for the Biblical view against Judaizers, then yo
Glenn to Marlin - I stand by what I said about you. Furthermore, below is false doctrine too. Jesus used ad hominem remarks. So that would make Jesus lacking proof for His claims.
Ad hominem remarks and name calling come from those who lack proof for their claims.
Marlin, liars go to hell. I am calling you a liar. I did not accuse you of being a Hitler lover. You see to be uneducated. You didn't seem to know much about him. You refused to take a stand against him and wrote things about him. You were given many chances to rebuke Hitler and you would not
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 1:27
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ad
hominem remarks
Thank you,
Brother... and Shalom!
-- slade
Do not hit the REPLY button when responding to this
email. Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED
Thank you, Brother... and Shalom!
-- slade
Do not hit the REPLY button when responding to this email. Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] directly. My hotmail
account is used exclusively for out-going email. Thank you.
- Original Message -
From:
Marlin Halverson
To: [EMAIL PR
55 matches
Mail list logo
