John wrote: > http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php > --- if you must get more complicated.
How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The word "complicated" has the implication that it cannot be understood by digging in deeper. The word "thorough" implies that we might achieve a better understanding by examining this more closely. John wrote: > This applies to "meaningless tautology" . > I was neither meaningless nor repetitive > in my posted comments. I never said YOU were meaningless, nor did I say that YOU were repetitive. Try reading my post again without taking it so personally. The link you provide tells us how to prove an ad hominem. It said: > Identify the attack and show that the character or > circumstances of the person has nothing to do with > the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended My assertion was that if your definition of "agree" in your statement meant "seeing everything in exactly the same way," then your statement was true but meaningless because I doubt that anybody would ever suggest that two people see everything in exactly the same way. My statement said nothing about your character or person, and my statement has nothing to do with showing your statement to be false or true based upon you, the person saying it, or your character. Whether you or anybody else made the statement, it makes no difference in regards to my response. My statement concerned how you were defining your terms in your statement, and my conclusion of a tautology was not an absolute judgment, but rather it was based upon how you defined your terms. Ergo, my statement about "meaningless tautology" was not an ad hominem argument. How about we get back to the subject now rather than debating whether I was violating the ad hominem rule. We should let Perry make that ruling for us. John wrote: > If DM wants to drag into play my previous posts, he > does himself in with the identical charge of "meaningless > tautology." Yes, let's drag your previous post back into play. I am not creating a "meaningless tautology" by doing so. I am hoping that I can get through to you how to discuss topics rather than people. I hope to help you judge what I say rather than judge me. JD wrote: >>> The fact is this, David, you do not agree in >>> total with anyone - neither do I or Judy or >>> anyone else. David Miller wrote: >> I believe there are many men and women with whom >> I am in total agreement with. This does not mean that >> we see everything identically. If you are trying to say >> that nobody sees everything exactly in the same way, >> then that is another one of your meaningless tautologies, >> a statement which is true but which adds nothing to our >> mutual understanding. If your definition of "agree in total" means "seeing everything exactly in the same way," then your statement is a true based upon how you are defning the word "agree." It is a true because nobody would ever argue that any two people see everything in exactly the same way. It is doubtful that any two people perceive the color of an object in exactly the same way. The problem is that your statement takes us away from what some of the rest of us have in mind, which is how the Bible defines the word "agree." The Biblical model instructs disciples of Christ to agree in total with one another (John 17:21-26, 1 Cor. 1:10, Mat. 18:19, 1 Cor. 12:25). In order to further a profitable discussion about agreement, we need to begin with this perspective, that we are commanded to be in agreement. The task then becomes understanding how this agreement is experienced by us. Many of us on TruthTalk proceed from the premise that we are to be in agreement with one another. You raise the objection that it is impossible and that nobody is in agreement. Many of us on TruthTalk have the testimony that we are in total agreement with other brothers and sisters in Christ. Someone suggested that issues you might raise as "differences" are minor and not considered of such a level as to be "disagreements." You can either seek to understand us and our perspective, or you can continue to claim that nobody is in agreement by defining the word "agreement" in some non-Biblical way that lets you feel confident that you have proved the rest of us wrong. Note, however, that if you take the latter approach, those of us who take the Bible as the supreme authority in this matter will choose to reject your testimony because we cannot reconcile your statement with the Biblical model. You may feel like you have found a clever way to win a debate, but you have lost your audience if we cannot agree on the Biblical definition of "agreement" and how we experience that agreement. 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.
