From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Nov 21 2001 - 13:18:19 MST
"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> From: "Chris Russo" <extropy@russo.org>
> > You don't necessarily lose an argument by using an ad hominem. You
> > just can't really win an argument with an ad hominem. The rest of
> > the argument may well stand on its own.
>
> Sometimes, as in this case, an attack on an opponent's character rather than
> by an answer to the contentions made is justified because this particular
> opponent can put so much that's wrong into so small a space, and do it in such
> a way that it takes ten times (or more) that space to explain carefully just
> how wrong it all is. No wonder it's the most favored debating tactic of
> ideologues. They do it deliberately to try to impose the greatest burden of
> wasted time, energy, and effort on their opponents, meanwhile making their
> malicious, emotionally loaded arguments to the ignorant. If one believes there
> is a such a thing as neurosis, and if one believes that they can make "idiotic
> statements," then such people surely are neurotic, if not quite "blithering
> idiots."
Actually, since I assume you are indirectly choosing me as a
case in point, you are being quite paranoid. I simply express
the way I see the situation at the moment as best I can. I may
be any mix of right, wrong, muddle-headed, clear-headed and so
on but one thing I am not doing, never have done and never will
do is being manipulative and attempting to waste other's time to
counter what I say. I highly resent the bald assertion that I
am doing any such thing. I will not defend against it since it
is baseless. I don't want to put you in the position of
defending such baseless nonsense either.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:05 MST