this is not an ad hominem attack; this says that the article criticises violence and not non-violent beliefs; therefore, it should not offend those who do not support such violence, and its posting is justified.
my comment doesn't imply that you or anyone else supports violence. it does imply that you have not demonstrated a basis to feel offended by the article if you do not support what was criticised by the article (violence etc). as i wrote separately, you can read any implications into any article and get offended, but that doesn't demonstrate that the offensive meanings were actually implied, let alone stated. On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 07:47 +0530, shiv sastry wrote: > On Sunday 20 May 2007 10:30 pm, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > > now if you not only noisily worship stones, phallic symbols etc, but > > also support violence against those who do not, and want to rewrite > > textbooks to include myths, then you could feel offended by the article. > > but in that case i can't say the article should not have been posted to > > this list. > > This comment says that it is justifiable to post Martha Nussbaum's article on > this list on condition that there exists someone on the list (as defined by > the use of the word "you" in the post above) who will "not only noisily > worship stones, phallic symbols etc, but also support violence against those > who do not" > > I see this as an ad hominem against unnamed members of this list - it could > possibly be me. The article has been posted here because someone on silk list > supports violence against someone else. > > I would like to ask the basis of this accusation, and what evidence is there > to suggest that I, or anyone else on silk list supports violence against > those who do not worship "noisily worship stones, phallic symbols etc" > > Otherwise it is an ad hominem, and should be treated as such. > > shiv
