OK, Kevin, easy objective test: A
person has said something you disagree with. If, in arguing
against the person's ideas, you comment not on the ideas themselves but
on the person, in an attempt to undermine the person's
credibility, your "argument" is ad hominem. The comment doesn't
even have to be false or vicious; what we're talking about is not necessarily a
moral infraction, but a logical one (although it certainly can be both). EVEN
the example below is ad hominem.
Example:
Joe: The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are
more than just symbols; they really are the Lord's body and blood.
Moe: You only say that because you're Roman
Catholic.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator
commant **
Don't read in what was not there. I meant the foolishness of the AD Hom
rule since there is no human way to frame it by use of an objective test.
A perfect illustration of foolishness.
Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an
"infraction"
Sorry I was not clear. Might have to do with 8 hours sleep in 3
days.
The next comment was an add on since I found it kind of shocking if you
were implying any authority, moral or otherwise. I thot U might be installing
yourself as the new Pope of TT.
AD Hom suggestion:
Maybe we should all ask before posting
"Mother may I"?
Bill Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No authority here, Kevin. I figure if any are
righteous enough to pass the scrutiny of this test, it's the least he or she
could do to tell me the answer. By the way, please explain to me the
"foolishness" of my words, or are yours just a marble short of
another lazy ad hom?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:20
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator
commant **
A perfect illustration of foolishness.
Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an
"infraction"
And unless you are claiming to be our spiritual Authority over
us, why "any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs
against another needs to explain to me" ? Bill
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The Moderator writes > Bill,
I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a
biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, . .
.
And Judy writes > You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a
rocket scientist to figure out who is implied here. . .
.
My point in using this character as my
example was to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none of
us can withstand the scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the
cleansing blood of Christ -- not even if that king be David. If our own
moral perfection is the criterion by which we speak, then none of us
could utter a word.
Yes, we believe by
faith that David's words are inspired. Is that why we
abstain from blasting him? What about those who don't yet have our view
of inspiration? Are they justified in dismissing his words on the
basis of his actions? I hope they do not.
And how about the Apostle Paul: Are they
justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? Or ought
they rather determine the truthfulness of his claims by an examination
of his words?
You tell me: Is there a single human
author in Scripture whose words can withstand the scrutiny of an ad
hom attack? If anyone ought to know that personal transgressions do not
determine the truthfulness of statements pertaining to God in Christ, it
is the Christian. And any Christian who feels justified in
using ad homs against another needs to explain to me why God chose to
use sinful men to record the truest words ever spoken. Ad homs are a
fallacy because none of us can withstand their attack. The truth is, it is on the basis of who Christ is
and Christ alone that we speak (and that means any of us: be it Calvin,
King David, Paul, you, me, Judy, or the vielest offender). If statements
are true, they are true because Christ is the Truth. Apart from him
there is not enough truth among us all to utter a single
word. Hence if it is true, it is Christ's truth, sinners that we
are. And if it is true it will stand upon the substance of who he
is, regardless of who speaks the words. And so Christians who feel
justified in resorting to ad homs in dismissing arguments, should
shut their mouths and repent -- because if they have once sinned,
there is no getting the plank out of those eyes.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:55
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator
commant **
> 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.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take
Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile
phone.
|
