A professional determination, my dear, based on the poorest means of evaluation, admittedly. One of my boys is obsessive - compulsive. it is not ad hom -- it certainly wasn't meant to be. Just an observation from one who is somewhat qualified to make that determination. The fact that DM cannot move on after being accused of ad hom is evidence of my opinion. It explains why he and I cannot ever seem to get past such meaningless tautologies as "yes you did" and "no I did not."
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:11:35 -0500
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
Now that?s another ad hom for JD. Still zero for DM. iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:14 AM
To:[email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
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:
To:
Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:46:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John wrote:
> --- 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
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
he will be subscribed.
