> Also: insult, tasteless as it is, is not the same thing as ad > hominem. You intentionally try to erode my credibility. I don't do > that to you.
Technically an ad hominem would include a direct statement that "this person should not be believed because [insult]". I'd argue that all insults about intelligence and behavior are implied ad hominems, since everyone knows that it is an attack on the person's credibility whether or not the attacker spells out that conclusion. Could you give an example of an ad hominem argument I've made about you? There are some valid arguments about a person's credibility that should not be confused with ad hominem, like when a person lies or contradicts earlier statements. I think you have damaged your credibility with many of the things you said, ways you've contradicted yourself. But it's not like I've said, "Joe is wrong about linguistic theory because he's a darn Catholic, and Catholics should not be trusted!" or "Joe is wrong about philosophy because he is from the East Coast, and New Englanders should not be trusted." I might say something like: Joe has said that "appeals to authority" are not logical fallacies. Anyone learning the basics of logic and the common appeals to emotion will hear that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Therefore Joe has demonstrated a poor understanding of logic and logical fallacies. Therefore his opinion on what constitutes "ad hominem" or other logical fallacies is probably based on an equally poor understanding. That's a discussion of your credibility, and it's not exactly addressing the specific question of what an ad hominem is (I did that earlier). But it's not a logical fallacy just because I bring up your credibility. > > > Now leave, or destroy the group by remaining, > > > and I will leave the destroyed group. > > > > Tell me what you plan to do, so I can do what is appropriate. > > > I see no reason to leave the group. If it's your judgment that the > > group is "destroyed" by my remaining in it, that's just another of > > your opinions I disagree with. > > > I invite you to stay with the group, or at least come back again > > whenever you feel like talking. > > I don't have a problem with anyone here but you. Why is that, do you > suppose? Because we spend so much virtual quality time with each other. Give it a chance. I'm sure you'll have problems with other people on here. Didn't you have a problem with the Muslim spammer who had little original content in his posts, mainly links to longer articles? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
