Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:34:57 -0700

Did you happen to reproduce,  Kevin.   If you did and when they came up with some ridiculous, childish, immature,  nonsensical, boorish,  humiliating and/or sarcastic comment directed to the Mom or one of the siblings  --  what did you do..........throw up your hands and make the same argument you have made in this post?    If a six year old kid is expected to act "grown up,"  why not all of us here on TT?
 
JD 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
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 <wmtaylor@plains.net> 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 <wmtaylor@plains.net> 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 utt er 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 -----
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
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" <wmtaylor@plains.net>
> >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
& gt; >   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" <wmtaylor@plains.net>
> >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 y ou should go for it.
> >
> >     Bill
> >
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     From: "Charles Perry Locke" <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
> >     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" <wmtaylor@plains.net>
> >     > >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.
> >  &nb sp;  > >
> >     > >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
> &g t;     > >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" <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
> >     > >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
> >     > >re ferring
> >     > > > 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
> >     > > & gt; 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
> >   & nbsp; > >[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 kn ow 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.

Reply via email to