You have not given any references for your definition of ad hominem
arguments, so I don't know if you are reading a poor source or if you are
just making up the definition based upon your feelings about it. I think
the following definition is workable:
I sourced all three comments !!! Are you accusing me of making up definitions and then stating them as factual, David? Is that what you are doing?
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The job of the moderator is to rebuke those on the list who have crossed the
> line on the ad hominem arguments. He doesn't have to do that in very case,
> but when we fail to realize that we are attacking other list members, it is
> his job to point it out and stop the ad hominem flury. When we as list
> members point it out, we must be careful, because pointing out ad hominem
> arguments is an ad hominem rebuttal itself. We need to practice extra care
> and patience, and add enough to what we are saying to get the conversation
> back on track. We should not just say, "that was ad hom" as an attack and
> leave it at that.
>
> Concerning the definition of ad hominem arguement, we are primarily
> concerned with the form of discrediting what is said by attacking the
> messenger rather than the messenger. The reason is because of what we have
> observed on TruthTalk quite frequently in recent times. Members feel
> insulted and react more out of emotion than from rational thought. The
> dialogue disintigrates into a personal wrestling match which becomes very
> boring to everyone except the wrestlers.
>
> You have not given any references for your definition of ad hominem
> arguments, so I don't know if you are reading a poor source or if you are
> just making up the definition based upon your feelings about it. I think
> the following definition is workable:
>
> ---------------------
> >From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>
> An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin,
> literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical
> fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the
> person p resenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
> ---------------------
>
> You can read more about it at the link above. There are much better
> discussions elsewhere, but I simply do not have the time to look up the
> references for you right now.
>
> David Miller.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine
>
>
> And I, by no means, am conducting the work of "moderator.' I am discussing
> the defintion of ad hom . By definition, it is anything that takes us away
> from the discussion at hand. It can be insulting or not. That is all I
> am doing. Are we not allowed to discuss the definitions and applications?
> Discipline is the work of a moderator.
>
> jd
>
> -------- ------ Original message --------------
> From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > David's _expression_ 'personally, I'm not so sure that...' is one he employs
> > often. He does so rather than simply say 'Judy's position is my position'.
> > I'm not so sure that this is not the case
> >
> > .
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Miller"
> > To:
> > Sent: January 11, 2006 08:07
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine
> >
> >
> > > Judy wrote:
> > >>> ... they can not know God or His Word unless they are
> > >>> Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance.
> > >
> > > John wrote:
> > >> More ad hom and in this case a flasehood
> > >
> > > Please try to leave some of the moderation to the moderator. This is n
> > > ot
> > > an
> > > ad hominem argument. Discuss it in private if you disagree. Judy is
> > > simply
> > > communicating what she perceives how some of the intellectuals on this
> > > forum
> > > come across to her. If her perception is faulty, please try to correct
> > > it
> > > without attacking her. Teach her in meekness and humility. Personally,
> > > I'm
> > > not so sure she is too far off base with this characterization. We will
> > > know the truth of it by how the intellectuals respond.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > "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.o rg
>
> 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.
