Heaven

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never knew Christians who lied so much. What does this mean:

Unlike you, I do not consider the American legal system the pinnacle of human thought and reason.

You know I'm a lawyer and the attack was on ...[text shortened]... because I am one. Please be at least honest with yourself, LH.

My statement means exactly what it says. In this thread and others you have cited the evidentiary principles of the American legal system as being sufficient for instances that have nothing to do with criminal or civil law. You might think that's sufficient but I do not. (EDIT: This is where appeal to authority comes in). I would've said the same of a person from any professional background who held the same views.

If I wanted to make ad hominem attacks on you or the legal system you are part of I would've made statements like calling you a liar because you are a lawyer, or saying that the credibility of the US legal system is suspect because of nonsensical judgments it has made, or claiming that it is suspect because it once ruled that slavery and segregation were legal. That is not what I did.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Are you a Christian, Froggy ?

Thou sayest

Originally posted by frogstomp
Thou sayest

Which denomination, Froggy ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Nope it ain't; try going to http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php

and learning some real logic for a change.

Ironically - this supports my definition of abuse ad hominem.

Looking up definitions is only somewhat useful. But you need to know why a fallacy is a fallacy. Most people think a fallacy is one because it matches some definition they looked up (abusive ad hominem, begging the question, straw man, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, etc). But fallacies are usually due to irrelevant arguments or ambiguities in the terms. If you don't know the nature of a fallacy - you should probably avoid calling them out - or risk looking foolish.

And a fallacy isn't one if it isn't part of the argument. Calling someone a fool is not a fallacy. Saying someone's argument is wrong because they are a fool is a fallacy. Even morons can make valid arguments. If at this point I call you a moron, that is a gratuitous comment, not an argument.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
My statement means exactly what it says. In this thread and others you have cited the evidentiary principles of the American legal system as being sufficient for instances that have nothing to do with criminal or civil law. You might think that's sufficient but I do not. (EDIT: This is where appeal to authority comes in). I would've said the same of ...[text shortened]... s suspect because it once ruled that slavery and segregation were legal. That is not what I did.

Again you utterly failed to show that the principles that the legal system uses to interpret millions of documents and has used for thousands of years are not relevant to interpret the Bible, which is after all a document. Since you haven't made a single argument has to why these principles shouldn't be applicable, then the so-called appeal to authority is not fallacious at all. The purpose of contract and statute and will, etc. etc. etc. interpretation is to understand what the parties intended by the words of the document; that is the same goal as in Scriptural interpretation. perhaps we could both drop the vitriol and you could give me a reason why the principles I have given shouldn't be applicable to Scriptural interpretation.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Again you utterly failed to show that the principles that the legal system uses to interpret millions of documents and has used for thousands of years are not relevant to interpret the Bible, which is after all a document. Since you haven't made a single argument has to why these principles shouldn't be applicable, then the so-called appeal to ...[text shortened]... a reason why the principles I have given shouldn't be applicable to Scriptural interpretation.

No1: "Again you utterly failed to show that the principles that the legal system uses to interpret millions of documents and has used for thousands of years are not relevant to interpret the Bible, which is after all a document."

I don't believe this, I REALLY don't believe this ..... LMSO

Originally posted by Coletti
Ironically - this supports my definition of abuse ad hominem.

Looking up definitions is only somewhat useful. But you need to know why a fallacy is a fallacy. Most people think a fallacy is one because it matches some definition they looked up (abusive ad hominem, begging the question, straw man, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, etc). But ...[text shortened]... arguments. If at this point I call you a moron, that is a gratuitous comment, not an argument.

No matter; your original statement that an ad hominem fallacy was an attack on people's views or ideas was wrong; you are supposed to attack people's views or ideas in debate. Perhaps you'd like to address why interpretative principles used in law for documents of all types are invalid in intrepretating Scripture?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess we really need that Coletti dictionary; every time you are shown to be wrong about the definition of a term you whip up your own definition and say its just as valid. You are a true clown, Coletti. And looking up a word in a dictionary isn't an appeal to authority (unless you've invented your own definition for that as well) and neither ...[text shortened]... s the ones everybody but Coletti uses. A jerkwad is more useful than your "thoughts", Coletti.

Back to LOGIC 101.

If you provide a definition from any book and say it is true- you have made an "appeal to authority". Since there are several definitions of any word - no one definition is correct just because it is found in a dictionary (or website). You said I was "WRONG" based on your quote. For me to be wrong, your definition would have to be perfect, universal, and logically necessary. Since that is impossible, your argument was fallacious - and by common definition it would be an appeal to authority.

Had you merely said you disagreed, or said you thought you had a better definition - your argument would have been fine. But your conclusion that I was wrong invalidated your argument.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No matter; your original statement that an ad hominem fallacy was an attack on people's views or ideas was wrong; you are supposed to attack people's views or ideas in debate. Perhaps you'd like to address why interpretative ...[text shortened]... or documents of all types are invalid in intrepretating Scripture?

Your confusion is due to the misunderstanding of fallacy - and the idea that all ad hominems are fallacies. If one can show how a persons view leads to irrational or contradictory conclusions - the is a valid ad hominem by my definition. Since that is all LH did, then his argument was not fallacious.

You may disagree with my definition, and my definition may be uncommon, but that does not make it invalid. And since it is useful in classifying a particular type of argument, it is completely valid and justified.

(P.S. One is not required to attack a person's views when arguing. A perfectly valid argument could avoid addressing a persons particular views. On the other hand, a good ad hominem argument against a persons views is completely legitimate.)

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Which denomination, Froggy ?

What difference, really?

Originally posted by Coletti
Back to LOGIC 101.

If you provide a definition from any book and say it is true- you have made an "appeal to authority". Since there are several definitions of any word - no one definition is correct just because it is found in a dict ...[text shortened]... . But your conclusion that I was wrong invalidated your argument.

More stupidity. Did you read my prior post:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:

the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
experts in the field disagree on this issue.
the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

So back to real Logic 101: an appeal to an authority is not fallacious unless there is some reason why the authority is not valid. Since a dictionary or a logic book, obviously our experts in the field, since you've made no showing that experts view ad hominem differently (you are clearly not an expert) and since we have no intention that the site is run by drunks or clowns no fallacy was committed AND you were WRONG.

I will have to start calling you Humpty Dumpty if you really believe that NO word has any definite meaning and that you can attach any meaning to it you please. That's just absurd.

Originally posted by Coletti
Your confusion is due to the misunderstanding of fallacy - and the idea that all ad hominems are fallacies. If one can show how a persons view leads to irrational or contradictory conclusions - the is a valid ad hominem by my definition. Since that is all LH did, then his argument was not fallacious.

You may disagree with my definition, and my definitio ...[text shortened]... it is useful in classifying a particular type of argument, it is completely valid and justified.

Humpty Dumpty strikes again!

Originally posted by Coletti
Your confusion is due to the misunderstanding of fallacy - and the idea that all ad hominems are fallacies. If one can show how a persons view leads to irrational or contradictory conclusions - the is a valid ad hominem by my definition. Since that is all LH did, then his argument was not fallacious.

You may disagree with my definition, and my definitio ...[text shortened]... On the other hand, a good ad hominem argument against a persons views is completely legitimate.)

You are wrong; all ad hominems are fallacies. The person themselves has nothing to do with the validity of the person's argument. Your definition of ad hominem doesn't count as it is only yours and no one else's on planet Earth's.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Again you utterly failed to show that the principles that the legal system uses to interpret millions of documents and has used for thousands of years are not relevant to interpret the Bible, which is after all a document. Since you haven't made a single argument has to why these principles shouldn't be applicable, then the so-called appeal to ...[text shortened]... a reason why the principles I have given shouldn't be applicable to Scriptural interpretation.

Well, you wouldn't use legal principles to attack quantum mechanics, but surely interpretation of language (which the Bible is composed of) is not so far off the mark.
(if you're following along at home folks)

Originally posted by no1marauder
More stupidity. Did you read my prior post:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:

the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
experts in the field disagree on this issue.
the authority ...[text shortened]... ny definite meaning and that you can attach any meaning to it you please. That's just absurd.

Provide for me the only definition of ad hominem. While your at it, find the only definition of fool. And then prove that that definition is logically the only correct definition.

An declaration that ones conclusion is correct simply based on an appeal to authority - and not based on a valid argument - is fallacious. It matters not if it is an appeal to the Webster or the Einstein. E does not equal mc^2 just because Einstein says so. And he is the expert.

You don't understand why the "appeal to authority" is fallacious. It is fallacious because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. Since your conclusion is a universal declaration that I am wrong based soley on a dictionary definition - your argument is invalid. You can not prove a universal conclusion from an appeal to any authority.