Re: META: Let's be clear about the ad hominem rule

From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2001 - 15:54:29 MST

Next message: Robert Coyote: "Re: Sincere Questions on Identity"
Previous message: hal@finney.org: "Re: Sincere Questions on Identity"
Maybe in reply to: Max More: "META: Let's be clear about the ad hominem rule"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) > "John Clark" <jonkc@worldnet.att.net> <extropians@extropy.org> Re: META: Let's be clear about the ad hominem ruleDate: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:42:30 -0500
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>As I understand it an ad hominem is more than just name calling, it is an appeal to
>personal considerations rather than to logic or reason; thus calling a person a
>jackass is an ad hominem, but calling said person a jackass and then marshaling
>logical arguments showing the individual in question really is a member of the
>species Equus Asinus would not be. This doesn't appear to be the intent of the list,
>it's be polite no matter what, thus I recommend striking "ad hominem" from list rules
>and substituting the more accurate if pedestrian sounding phrase "name calling".
>
> John K Clark jonkc@att.net
>
William F. Buckley once said that although ad hominem is a fallacy, that it is the fallacy that bites, because one's background and perspective do indeed color one's positions and arguments.

------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.

Next message: Robert Coyote: "Re: Sincere Questions on Identity"
Previous message: hal@finney.org: "Re: Sincere Questions on Identity"
Maybe in reply to: Max More: "META: Let's be clear about the ad hominem rule"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:29 MST