John,
David's wording of "using yet another one of your meaningless
tautologies" instead of something less directed, does sound more emotional
in nature than had he said simply "using a tautology" [the word
"meaningless" is redundant since it is implied by the fact that a tautology
is being claimed], and I can understand how you would take it that way. But
I do not believe that David intended this as an attack on you, otherwise I
feel certain that he would have admitted it and apologized. He has told me
himself that he believes people can post things that appear ad-hominem, or
that another takes that way, that are not intended to be so. And, since he
does not sin, I am sure he would have apologized had he really meant it that
way.
David, I hope this does not sound like a patronization of your statement
that you do not sin, but I believe that if you at all meant it in the sense
John is stating that the spirit would have convicted you and you would have
apologized. Am I right on this?
John, if you feel that his statement is a fantasy, the proper approach is
to refute his assertion.
Perry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are put downs, Perry, and there are statements of compliment. The
fantasy that "John is using yet another meaningless tautology" is a phrase
that is of the insult variety. In fact, David's whole tone is such.
Webster says what he says. And that is the sense in which I use the
wording. David believes that you can separate the words of an opponent
from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom. I do
not.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John,
I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John. All
discussion contains some form of logic, some form of argumentation,
especially when our goal is to present and support a point of view. In it's
simplist form the ad hominem argument is merely an appeal to emotion rather
than logic.
Actually, David's statement is not an ad hominem comment directed at
you. >From www.dictionary.com:
tau·tol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j)
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
b. An instance of such repetition.
2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a
fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are
factually true or false; for example, the statement "Either it will rain
tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow".
The point, John, is that a tautology is always true, cannot ever be
false, "states the obvious", adding nothing to an argument. In that sense
it is "meaningless". In mathemetics, a simple example of a tautology is
"1=1". What does that add to your understanding of mathematics? Nothing. In
that sense it is a "meaningless tautology".
Perry
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>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
----------
"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.
