Originally posted by Blackamphmmm...silence, or feline sadism? always a difficult choice.but i guess it'll be too late for silence once i click 'post'.
those holes in your purples socks are getting bigger. more hole than sock these days. is this lifted directly from the Encyclopedia of Cod Psychology?
Originally posted by PalynkaInteresting how conversations often pivot on definitions. Coding mechanism in my forehead transmitted
Deference requires uncritical acceptance. And uncritical acceptance is anathema to reason and freedom.
a casual/positive signal (sense of benefit from a courteous tactical pause), while the decoding mechanism
in yours received a code red alert/negative one (uncritical acceptance/anathema to reason and freedom).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't really understand what you are saying.
I don't really understand what you are saying.
My explanation of what 'ad hominem' means is correct. Motives for using it are legion, speculation thereto cheap.
On a side note, I wish people would distinguish between ad hominem (a logical fallacy) and insult. So frequently people hop up and down with their 'ad hominem! ad hominem!' when they ar ...[text shortened]... ; the best weapons against blatant idiots are silence or feline sadism, according to taste.
That makes two of us.
My explanation of what 'ad hominem' means is correct.
Agreed.
Ad hominem is held to be a conflict to a system which concerns itself with ideas. Nearly all aspects of logic and arguments are idea-dependent, whereas the AH argument is assumed to be about a person, sans any connection to any ideas. The closest approximation that I can get to what I am describing is ad hominem circumstantial, but this only speaks to subjectivity on the basis of the influencing situation, not a rejection of any underlying idea.
What I am suggesting is that perhaps there is an element of idea-dependency to the AH argument that isn't being considered: when the person against whom it is used represents the underlying idea which has been rejected by the person employing the tactic.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbythere is a wide gap between a 'courteous tactical pause', and 'deference'. i'd refer you to a dictionary, but you've made it clear you don't see their value.
Interesting how conversations often pivot on definitions. Coding mechanism in my forehead transmitted
a casual/positive signal (sense of benefit from a courteous tactical pause), while the decoding mechanism
in yours received a code red alert/negative one (uncritical acceptance/anathema to reason and freedom).
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAgain, I believe you misrepresent what an Ad Hominem is held to be. It's simply identifying that an attack on the source is immaterial with respect to the truth value of the opposing idea. This is far weaker than the claim that it is "sans any connection to any ideas" (emphasis mine).
[b]I don't really understand what you are saying.
That makes two of us.
My explanation of what 'ad hominem' means is correct.
Agreed.
Ad hominem is held to be a conflict to a system which concerns itself with ideas. Nearly all aspects of logic and arguments are idea-dependent, whereas the AH argument is assumed to be about a person, san ...[text shortened]... d represents the underlying idea which has been rejected by the person employing the tactic.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAH seems in a way to attach to Marshall McLuhan's 'medium is the message':
[b]I don't really understand what you are saying.
That makes two of us.
My explanation of what 'ad hominem' means is correct.
Agreed.
Ad hominem is held to be a conflict to a system which concerns itself with ideas. Nearly all aspects of logic and arguments are idea-dependent, whereas the AH argument is assumed to be about a person, san d represents the underlying idea which has been rejected by the person employing the tactic.[/b]
"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning
that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic
relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."
-wiki
Originally posted by PalynkaI guess I'm trying to underscore the distinction that logic concerns itself with the ideas and an AH argument doesn't--- or seemingly doesn't. Instead of considering the picture, it talks about the frame.
Again, I believe you misrepresent what an Ad Hominem is held to be. It's simply identifying that an attack on the source is immaterial with respect to the truth value of the opposing idea. This is far weaker than the claim that it is "sans [b]any connection to any ideas" (emphasis mine).[/b]
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMcLuhan so gets me.
AH seems in a way to attach to Marshall McLuhan's 'medium is the message':
"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning
that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic
relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."
-wiki
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you want to be polemical, I'd say that logic doesn't even really concern itself with the actual ideas. It's simply a method.
I guess I'm trying to underscore the distinction that logic concerns itself with the ideas and an AH argument doesn't--- or seemingly doesn't. Instead of considering the picture, it talks about the frame.
But...don't let me ruin your party. I'll get my coat.
Originally posted by BlackampIn my forehead, there's also 'deference' linkage with both 'esteem' and 'regard'.
there is a wide gap between a 'courteous tactical pause', and 'deference'. i'd refer you to a dictionary, but you've made it clear you don't see their value.
This conversation isn't the least bit competitive for yours truly. I'm in it to learn.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyFavorably.
Favorably or unfavorably? Either way, his "influences how the message is perceived" does seem germane to this dialogue.
The 'weakness' of the AH argument is that is is not thought of as speaking to anything but the frame, whereas all of the other arguments are thought of as speaking to the picture. AH rejects the frame without considering the picture--- frame only, which is why it has been hitherto fore been held to be a distraction from the actual argument.
My point is that perhaps a case could be made for the AH argument actually speaking to a bigger picture: one which houses both the frame and the picture in view, the idea behind the person.