http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php --- if you must get more complicated. This applies to "meaningless tautology" . I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted comments.
If DM wants to drag into play my previous posts, he does himself in with the identical charge of "meaningless tautology."
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.
