John, if you feel that his statement is a fantasy, the proper approach is to refute his assertion. Perry
I have done so in the past to no avail. Such a discussion always winds up being a debate over subjective issues. Failure will be the only outcome between opponents. Rather than a protracted discussion of personal issues, I prefer biblical issues since that is the reason why I came to this forum in the first place.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:28:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>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.
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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>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.
