Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical
character that matches the characteristics you listed, although I did see a
three musketeer movie once in which King Louis did exactly the same thing.
To which were you referring? :-)
Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot of things through the
years, and have used those ad hominem arguments to discount his prophetic
position. That is not good debate style because even if he was a
money-digging stone-peeping plaigerizing, philandering huckster, those
things should have no bearing on arguments about the mormon church.
Perry
From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600
I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey Perry: what about those of
us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad homs against the
theologians, prophets, and kings of another's argumentation?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Taylor
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
The problem here is huge since the person described below is not a
theologian. Rather he is a prophet/king
chosen by God whose recorded words are inspired by the Spirit of God.
Big difference. jt
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
The Moderator responds > . . .those arguments, too, should have to
stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.
You don't say! Hmmmmmm. If you were ever to enforce this one, it would
render some of us speechless. Just think how it would affect the traffic
here on TruthTalk if participants were required to actually research,
contemplate, and address the substance of theological statements, instead
of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because the theologian seduced and
slept with another man's wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to
the front lines to be murdered -- I think you should go for it.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> Bill,
>
> In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional
in
> nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies
directly
> to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.
>
> However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in
> arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should
have to
> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on
Calvin.
>
> Perry
>
> >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
> >
> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for
the
> >great example to the rest of us.
> >
> >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad
hominem
> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions
guidelines
> >page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking
the
> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true
or
> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing,
or does
> >it
> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one
might
> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal
of John
> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person,
i.e., his
> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance
of the
> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
> >argumentation on TruthTalk?
> >
> >Bill
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> >
> > > TT members,
> > >
> > > I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my
> >referring
> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
After
> >some
> > > discussion back and forth, and some research, I am convinced
that it is
> >so
> > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> > >
> > > I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about
someone
> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon
doing a
> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it
is true
> >or
> > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so
saying
> >anything
> > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or
negative, is
> >an
> >ad
> > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you
are a
> >smart
> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is
directed at
> > > someone personally.
> > >
> > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that
TT
> >wishes
> >to
> > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the
receiver
> >of
> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that
he
> >thought
> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> > >
> > > So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
> >ad-hominem
> > > reference.
> > >
> > > The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
> >Specifically,
> > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT
> >discussions
> > > guidelines page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an
argument by
> > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless
whether it
> >is
> > > true or false.
> > >
> > > Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to
making
> > > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from
anyone
> >that
> > > would like to point out such comments. If we have only one
watcher, who
> > > watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group
moderates me.
> > >
> > > Perry the Moderator
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > "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.
>
>
> ----------
> "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.
