05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiThe obvious reason was the one I gave earlier. The RYR was smarter than you and understood the intended rebuke.ad hominem's are verbal attacks on the person's character ,
P.S. Ad hominems are attacks of a persons views or ideas - Christ often used them to show how certain beliefs people held lead to fo ...[text shortened]... instants: "your argument is worthless because you are a moron."
,the purpose of a debate is attacks on the person's views and ideas
name calling is just being rude.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompAd hominem means "to the man".
ad hominem's are verbal attacks on the person's character ,
,the purpose of a debate is attacks on the person's views and ideas
name calling is just being rude.
If you show that a persons views lead to foolishness - that is an ad hominem. It you say a person is wrong because they are a moron (an attack of character), that is an abuse ad hominem. Either way it must be part of your argument, and it must be directed at the person or the person's ideas to be considered an ad hominem.
Name calling may be rude - but a fool is a fool. Sometimes it's better to let a person know he is a moron.
05 Jun 05
3 edits
[i/]Originally posted by Coletti[/i]LMFAO! You guys are completely ridiculous; if he understood it as a direct rebuke to him, he would have simply left; but he understood perfectly that Jesus didn't want to be called "good". It's pretty hilarious the twists, turns and semantical handstands you people will go through to preserve your superstition intact from the words in the very book you claim inspiration from! I'll leave it to anyone to read the passage for themselves and come to their own conclusions; as I pointed out before plenty of people who regard the Bible as sacred text have rejected and reject now the idea of the Trinity as non-Scriptural and I would point to this passage as evidence in support of their view (along with the curious fact that the entire OT never suggests that God is anything but unitary).
The obvious reason was the one I gave earlier. The RYR was smarter than you and understood the intended rebuke.
P.S. Ad hominems are attacks of a persons views or ideas - Christ often used them to show how certain beliefs people held ...[text shortened]... instants: "your argument is worthless because you are a moron."
Interesting that Mr. Logic didn't even know what an ad hominem fallacy was! LH's attack on the American Legal system in this discussion, was solely because I was a member of it. Therefore, it was a "second level" ad hominem but still an ad hominem.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiThat's the most moronic definition of ad hominem I ever heard.
Ad hominem means "to the man".
If you show that a persons views lead to foolishness - that is an ad hominem. It you say a person is wrong because they are a moron (an attack of character), that is an abuse ad hominem. Either way it must be part of your argument, and it must be directed at the person or the person's ideas to be considered an ad homi ...[text shortened]... ay be rude - but a fool is a fool. Sometimes it's better to let a person know he is a moron.
btw Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to h is brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstomp
The trouble is that reading Christ's words , and taking into the overall Gospels puts a Paulian filter on them, unless you view the Gospels as only Christ's words.
It's Paul that makes the assertions that you are using. It's not really a difficult thing to see either, Christ says ' walk' and Pauls says " to wa ...[text shortened]... , then put your left foot forward and shake it all about...."
See the difference?
Is that a strawman or an analogy ?
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderCorrection: My "attack" on the American legal system was solely because you cited it as an authority on textual interpretation. Indeed, I would've questioned it as a valid authority in this case regardless of your profession - you could be a doctor, a mechanic or a janitor and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.
Interesting that Mr. Logic didn't even know what an ad hominem fallacy was! LH's attack on the American Legal system in this discussion, was solely because I was a member of it. Therefore, it was a "second level" ad hominem but still an ad hominem.
Look up "appeal to authority" under debating fallacies. My questioning the validity of the American legal system's principles does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Get your facts right.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiMr. Logic: Ad hominems are attacks of a person's views or ideas
Ad hominem means "to the man".
If you show that a persons views lead to foolishness - that is an ad hominem. It you say a person is wrong because they are a moron (an attack of character), that is an abuse ad hominem. Either way it must be part of your argument, and it must be directed at the person or the person's ideas to be considered an ad homi ...[text shortened]... ay be rude - but a fool is a fool. Sometimes it's better to let a person know he is a moron.
WRONG!!!! Ad hominems are attacks on the person themselves, not their views or ideas. Here they are:
ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
Obviously, LH's attack on the American legals ystem because I am a lawyer fits into the ad hominem (circumstantial) category.
Would you like some salt with the crow you should eat now, Mr. Logic?
05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf that is the case, then it is a legitimate and correct use of an ad hominem since he showed the foolishness of your using irrelevant rules of contract interpretation as a means of interpreting scripture. It was clearly not an abuse ad hominem because he did not attack your moronic character.
...Interesting that Mr. Logic didn't even know what an ad hominem fallacy was! LH's attack on the American Legal system in this discussion, was solely because I was a member of it. Therefore, it was a "second level" ad hominem but still an ad hominem.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1 Maurauder: " (along with the curious fact that the entire OT never suggests that God is anything but unitary)."
LMFAO! You guys are completely ridiculous; if he understood it as a direct rebuke to him, he would have simply left; but he understood perfectly that Jesus didn't want to be called "good". It's pretty hilarious the twists, turns and semantical handstands you people will go through to preserve your superstition intact from the words in the ver ...[text shortened]... e I was a member of it. Therefore, it was a "second level" ad hominem but still an ad hominem.
... "never suggests" ..... are you sure, no1 ? Where have you gotten that wisdom ? Who told you so ?
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiThere is no such thing as a legitimate and correct use of a logical fallacy, Mr. Logic.
If that is the case, then it is a legitimate and correct use of an ad hominem since he showed the foolishness of your using irrelevant rules of contract interpretation as a means of interpreting scripture. It was clearly not an abuse ad hominem because he did not attack your moronic character.