Your solution to the problem is of no consequence, David. That is a fact. Nothing has improved since you have argued for the "solution." As a leader, I am surprised as to what you have been willing to surrender in terms of the effectiveness of this forum. I would have thought that you would want to solve the problem -- but you are not so interested, and a very good thing is circling in the bottom of the toilet bowl. EEEEhhh!
Here is a defintion of ad hominem that you miss: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. You think that it is acceptable for those in your alliance to cast dispersions and condemnations against those hapless victims who stumble onto this site thinking they might have a venue to air [sp] their ideas. Fools all. And they soon discover this and move. Your ineptness in this regard cast doubt on a number of your other claims.
You further, seem to think that because Dave or Blaine are used to it, that it is OK to insult and disparage them. They are not the standard here (sorry guys). Christ is the example. But, of course, we can't even agree on that. Sorry you took the time to write the post below. Nothing you might say is of much import to me in view of the continuing negatives and slanderous use of scripture on this site. I wait patiently (maybe) for this to change. We have been in such a funk before. Another Michael, or Debbie or Bill or Jonathan or Gary or Slade will come along. And those of us who value the benefit of community will smile for three or four days and then off to the Trash Talk races we go.
David Miller wrote:
>>Izzy's post fails the ad hominem argument on
>>many fronts. She was not speaking to a
>>Mormon, but to Lance.
John wrote:
>She actually raised the disgusting questions as to
>whether one was disobeying her god's command
>against sharing the pearls of truth with swine.
>In the context, she was clearly referencing Mormons
>and only the most blind misses the point.
You are missing my point, John. Before I explain my point further, let me
point out AGAIN that she was not referencing "Mormons" but rather "hardened
Mormons."
The term "ad hominem" comes from debate. It refers to a logical fallacy
commited by a debate opponent. When two people are debating an issue, one
opponent begins to attack the personal character of the person with whom
they are debating rather than attacking the arguments made by that person.
To those not well exercised in the principles of logic and reason, such a
method appeals to their emotions, and they might agree with it for emotional
reasons. The person therefore attempts to win the argument based upon
emotion rather than reason.
My point was that Izzy was not speaking directly to a Mormon member when she
made her statement. She was simply extending the thread and bringing in
some Biblical perspective to it. Some might disagree with her Biblical
perspective, but she has a right to express that in this forum.
Furthermore, she should be commended for bringing some Scripture into the
discussion rather than given a 24 hour ultimatum to apologize for it.
The reason we single out this one logical fallacy of the ad hominem argument
over scores of others and make a rule against it is because the ad hominem
fallacy is regular practiced on email and it wastes a lot of time. It also
causes email exchanges to degenerate into meaningless emotional spats that
become very boring for those reading it. The two that get wrapped up in it
usually are oblivious to the loss of interest of the rest of the people on
the list. If the forum was before a live audience providing visual and
audio feedback, they would be alerted sooner to their error by the loss of
interest in the audience. Unfortunately, email does not provide this
feedback, so the error of the ad hominem argument becomes more detrimental.
That is why we have a rule against it. It is not a sin to commit an ad
hominem argument. It is simply a rule we have that helps guide the
discussion toward reason instead of emotion.
Now was Izzy's post insulting to Mormons? Probably so, although I think the
phrase "hardened Mormons" softens the blow somewhat because a Mormon might
recognize that there are some Mormons who are hardened and some who are not.
He might not consider himself to be a "hardened Mormon." Would you have
been insulted if Izzy had said "hardened Christians"? I hope not.
Nevertheless, regardless of how insulting it is, such is allowed on this
forum. Not to allow insulting points would be too restrictive in how a
person would be allowed to express themselves. The solution for insults is
on the part of the hearer. They need to learn not to take it personally.
I hope this help you understand better our rule against the ad hominem
argument and our allowance for the _expression_ of disdain for religious sects
or even non-member prophets like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Sun Myung
Moon, or David Koresh.
I also would like to point out that any effort to make the Mormons feel more
comfortable is misguided. They have both participated on this list for a
very long time. We have derided their religion, called Joseph Smith a false
prophet, insulted their missionaries, etc. time and time again. Getting
Izzy to tone down will not facilitate their staying around. I'm sure DaveH
would rather have Izzy around making her comments than for us to moderate
the list in such a way that Izzy feels too constrained to participate. If
some feel that they can better get through to the Mormons through more
tactful means of _expression_, they are free to engage that method on this
list. We need to practice toleration toward all list members and not just
our favorites.
David Miller.
