The literal meaning of "ad hominem" (a contraction of argumentum ad
hominem) is "argument against the person" ... that is, it is a way
of discrediting the viability of the person as a way of discrediting
their statements. Such attacks almost invariably can be seen as an
insult, although I don't take graywolfs statements as such. If they
were intended as such, I won't waste the energy on being offended.
I've already discussed the exchange with Tom C in later emails.
Perhaps you should read what I wrote before commenting.
Godfrey
On Mar 29, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
On Mar 29, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Yes, here we go again. Ad hominem attacks are a signal to me that
you are out of ideas on how to respond meaningfully.
Godfrey
You may wish to seek out a definition of ad hominem. What Graywolf
did was insult you. There's a difference.
You, however, are guilty of an ad hominem attack when you said to
Tom C.:
"With these statements, you demonstrate little study of
Philosophy or Science."
By pointing out what you perceived to be Tom's educational
deficiencies, you slipped from a discussion of the subject to a
suggestion that Tom was not qualified to make his assertions. That
is a textbook example of ad hominem, in that Tom's level of
education has no bearing on the veracity of his assertions.
Doug
who thinks "ad hominem" claims are thrown about entirely too often.
