OUCH can you see the new jd?
Grace and peace to all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Absolutly nothing here, in this post, has anything to do with matters > of significance. You are an obsessive-complusive with an aside for > Jesus Christ. > > Grace to You > > JD > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:46:51 -0400 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion > > > 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. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------- "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.
