David please, give it a rest. Linda can choose to exit or, continue to participate. Let's move on.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: February 05, 2005 10:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ad Hom Farce > 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. > > 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.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > ---------- "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.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
