John,
I did not accuse you of making an argument for calling Judy "Jezebel". I was
making an argument for your NOT calling her Jezebel.
And "my side"? I have not said "my side" is going to "approve calling
names". Please don't confuse me with those who may approve such.
John, do we need to continue this? If you do, lets please write to me
privately.
Thanks,
Perry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf
for Karl Barth)
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:40:30 -0500
Do you get my point, Perry. Do you actually think that I am making an
argument for calling Judy Jezebel ? I think you need to read with a little
understanding. Your opening line is something that I thoroughly agree
with -- but if your side is going to approve calling names all in the
cause of Christ, why not tit for tat? So stop with the trach talk -
THAT is what I am saying.
john
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:12:15 -0800
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf
for Karl Barth)
What do I think? Well, I still think both the "barf" reference and the
"Jezebel" reference are ad hominem references.
One aspect of the meaning on "jezebel" may include a characteristic that
you feel applies to Judy, but since there are many dimensions to the word,
other uses of the word will undoubtedly come to mind. This is no different
than Lance's saying that Judy would make a good Muslim. While he may feel
that one of the characteristics of muslims applies to Judy, to say that she
would make a good muslim brings to mind many other undesirable
characteristics.
Did you like it when Jim Elsman called you "butterball"? There may of been
some nuance of that which Elsman felt was true, but I did not feel like it
gave him a right to call you that.
I think it all amounts to name-calling, which is ad-hominem in nature.
Perry
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf
>for Karl Barth)
>Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500
>
>Comments concerning Webster are correct, I am sure. But I included the
>only definition Webster entertains in the referenced work. One simply
>cannot say that the writing "is just plain stupid" without casting doubt
on >the intellectual abilities of the author. "Barf" is not the man's name
>and Judy speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. She has so
>committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments
>bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal
>knowing. I regard these words as both ignorant and stupid -- and the
>glory of it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the
line >of "ad hom" because I have limited my attack to her words and not to
her >person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of
>negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions .
>
>"Barf" is vomit, Perry. It no more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy
>Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If you
>disagree, then I will argue that Jezebel decribes the whoring words of
one >who has prostituted the truth for a lie.................and it will
become >a part of my presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe
Judy in >the same sense that The Revelations uses the word.
>
>What do you think?
>
>jd
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:36:14 -0800
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf
>for Karl Barth)
>
>
>John, there are many dimensions to the ad-hominem argument on which
>Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad hominem attack is
>most often used on TT is to demean the opponent for 1) hoping to
discredit >them to the point that their arguments seem untrustworthy, 2) to
throw a >red herring into the argument to avoid answering the opponent's
argument, >and 3) is almost alays a sign of defeat in the argument.
>
>...and "Jezebel" is one such ad-hominem.
>
>While "Barf" for "Barth" is indeed an ad hominem, it is meant to
discredit >a third party to which the opponent has referred as an
authority. However, >it is not intended to demean the opponent him/herself.
Terry did the same >by saying Calvin would make a good Muslim. I do not
consider these critical >ad-hominems since they are not intended to hurt or
demean other TT members, >although they are still a poor technique in
argumentation.
>
>Side bar...in my recent survey of the ad-hominem reference I was
surprised >to find that it is, in some types of arguments, regarded as an
effective >argument...and that was exclusively in political debate.
>
>Perry
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom
(Barf > >for Karl Barth)
> >Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:12:22 -0500
> >
> >Total chunky style barnyard. By the same logic, I can call you Jezebel
> >Taylor and Kevin "Dunce Deegan" and and so on. And "ad hom" has no such
> >limitations except here on TT. Ad hom is an attack on the person or
words > >of an individual "rather than an appeal to pure reason" (Webster's
> >Encyclopedic Dictionary.)
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [email protected]
> >Cc: [email protected]
> >Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:53:12 -0500
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom
(Barf > >for Karl Barth)
> >
> >
> >Oh Lance, I forgot to mention that I can not take credit for your >
>descriptive subject line
> >It is an original Kevinism (if I remember correctly) but after perusing
> >some of the subject's
> >theological ideas I found it appropriate.
> >
> >Remember ad hom is against the person. I don't know the man; my comment
> >reflects my
> >response to his theology which has been made very public..
> >
>
>----------
>"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.
----------
"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.
