John wrote:
>Your definition of "ad hominem" has done
>absolutely nothing to end the problem
It is not "MY" definition, as in my personal definition. Following are some
links to help you understand the ad hominem fallacy better:
Here is a definition: appealing to a person's feelings or emotions rather than his intellect; marked by an attack on opponent's character rather than an answer to his contentions. (Webster, Collegiate). You can quote all you want, when you ignore the fact that the definition for this word is bound to contrasting actions (this in opposition to that), you perpetuate the problem. There is no doubt that the problems ocntinues without a degree of resolve.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.goodart.org/attack.htm
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/abusive.asp
By the way, the comments on this last link identifies a recent post by Lance
as being ad hominem when he referred to Kevin's arguments as being
supercilious. that might be but you have effectively rejected this definition, so what is the point. Stay on issue. Judy recognized this when she spoke about how Kevin does not come across arrogant to her. Then you derided her for getting personal,
claiming that Lance was speaking about Kevin's arguments and not Kevin.
Such unproductive exchanges abound because of a lack of understanding of
reason and the ad hominem fallacy.
John wrote:
>Tensions have not decreased one wit because
>of your" rule.
The goal of the rule is not to decrease tension. So whats the point . Your rule does nothing to help. It is as if it does not exist. We will always have
tension on TruthTalk because we welcome a wide variety of members. If we
get atheists, pagans, Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, etc. in the same
forum, there ought to be some tension or something is wrong. The goal of
the rule is to encourage rational and logical posts that are meaningful to
all the members of the forum. Measured in view of this stated goal, we have a classic failure of monumental proportions.
John wrote:
>And what will become of any of your endeavors
>where this idiotic formula exists? Ps 49:10
>"...the stupid and the senseless alike perish."
>now -- let's look at the above. In no way did
>I actually attack Miller. I spoke of "idiotic
>formula" and quoted a scripture with the word
>"stupid" in it. Miller will never admit that this was
>offensive to him because he has his "rule" to
>defend -- but the fact is, the post, my post,
>is very insulting.
Your post was insulting, but very poor logically so it kind of rolls off me
like water off a duck's back. It illustrates your activity to the max. And the logic of your stated goal in view of your "solution." Again, it is simply undeniably true that the problem has not been addressed. Reality is reality, David. Leaders who can't see this are not called to their particular endeavor.
In regards to the rules of TruthTalk, your
post is marginally crossing the line because of saying "your endeavors" etc. Not at all, David. I am perfectly in line with your rule. You and your endeavors are two very different things. Is what I am saying part of the problem? CHANGE THE RULE TO DEAL WITH MY POST AND APPLY THAT CHANGE FAIRLY. THAT IS MY POINT. Until you do, expect me to wrestle at the edge of the mat.
If I were moderator, in most cases I would probably let it slide or maybe
send you a private note nudging you away from attacking a list member
personally. If someone had said this to someone who was very sensitive, I
would probably have to issue a reprimand because I know how such would set
them off on their own personal attacks against the original poster. Either you are saying that my sensitivites on this matter do not count or you are not in tune with your own actions.
David Miller.
