|
Now that’s another ad hom for
JD. Still zero for DM. iz From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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. >> 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. ---------- "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. |
- RE: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion ShieldsFamily
