I do not use ad hom in the sense of an issue of logic. I use it in the same sense as the dictionary definition I included earlier -- that's my story and I am sticking with it.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:54:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
One of the best discussions I have read on ad-hominem is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem.
Perry
>From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:56:11 -0400
>
>John wrote:
> > For the record, David, you haven't a clue as
> > to what is ad hom -- haven't had one since
> > I have been a part of TT. Here is a dictionary
> > definition of that concept (yes, I know how
> > to use one too):
> > "an argument directed to the personality, prejudices,
> > previous words and actions of an opponent rather
> > than an appeal to pure reason." Webster.
> > Your ".......another one of your meaningless tautologies"
> > most certainly fits the definition.
>
>LOL. We had better request the help of the moderator on this one John.
>Perry, please try and help John understand what an ad hominem argument is.
>He perhaps needs to understand this more than anybody else on the list.
>
>The word "tautology" speaks to the rhetorical value of what you said. It
>does not fit this Webster definition at all. You take things way too
>personal. You might be offended that I suggested your statement was
>logically true but meaningless, but that does not make it an ad hominem
>remark. Again, it all comes down to addressing what you are saying rather
>than you. If I said that you are a meaningless tautology or that you are
>dumb or that you are lying or that you are dishonest, any of this would be
>ad hominem arguments. Pointing out the logical validity and rhetorical
>value of your statement is not.
>
>John wrote:
> > this is in addition to the fact that you use the word
> > "tautologies" without regard to what the word means.
> > If, in fact, you did not use a dictionary, my I suggest
> > that you do so.
>
>The word "tautology" might be new for you, but I have been using it for >half
>my life. Why would I need to consult a dictionary? I could write a better
>definition than any dictionary definition you could come up with.
>
>If you need some help understanding my point in using the word tautology,
>let me suggest the following link:
>http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/t/ta/tautology.htm
>
>Here's another one:
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html#Tautologies
>
>And another:
>http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm< /SPAN>
>
>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.
Perry
>From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:56:11 -0400
>
>John wrote:
> > For the record, David, you haven't a clue as
> > to what is ad hom -- haven't had one since
> > I have been a part of TT. Here is a dictionary
> > definition of that concept (yes, I know how
> > to use one too):
> > "an argument directed to the personality, prejudices,
> > previous words and actions of an opponent rather
> > than an appeal to pure reason." Webster.
> > Your ".......another one of your meaningless tautologies"
> > most certainly fits the definition.
>
>LOL. We had better request the help of the moderator on this one John.
>Perry, please try and help John understand what an ad hominem argument is.
>He perhaps needs to understand this more than anybody else on the list.
>
>The word "tautology" speaks to the rhetorical value of what you said. It
>does not fit this Webster definition at all. You take things way too
>personal. You might be offended that I suggested your statement was
>logically true but meaningless, but that does not make it an ad hominem
>remark. Again, it all comes down to addressing what you are saying rather
>than you. If I said that you are a meaningless tautology or that you are
>dumb or that you are lying or that you are dishonest, any of this would be
>ad hominem arguments. Pointing out the logical validity and rhetorical
>value of your statement is not.
>
>John wrote:
> > this is in addition to the fact that you use the word
> > "tautologies" without regard to what the word means.
> > If, in fact, you did not use a dictionary, my I suggest
> > that you do so.
>
>The word "tautology" might be new for you, but I have been using it for >half
>my life. Why would I need to consult a dictionary? I could write a better
>definition than any dictionary definition you could come up with.
>
>If you need some help understanding my point in using the word tautology,
>let me suggest the following link:
>http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/t/ta/tautology.htm
>
>Here's another one:
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html#Tautologies
>
>And another:
>http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm< /SPAN>
>
>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.
