-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:17:35 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Perhaps Gary should have said that her wording manipulates the will of God.
Not quite. Gary should have provided evidence that demonstrates that the position she was arguing attempts to manilulate God. Big difference.
>Perhaps Gary should have said that her wording manipulates the will of God.
Not quite. Gary should have provided evidence that demonstrates that the position she was arguing attempts to manilulate God. Big difference.
I understood her statement to be evidence in and of itself. How come you didn't?
>I view much of this continuing discussion on ad hom as one of the grandest >examples of legalistic manipulation presented on TT.
Why do you view it this way? Is it because we don't want you to behave badly when discussing truth? If one can't make a point without name calling or personalizing the argument, then he either has a weak argument (one that the facts do not support) or is too lazy to present the facts supporting his postition.
>I view much of this continuing discussion on ad hom as one of the grandest >examples of legalistic manipulation presented on TT.
Why do you view it this way? Is it because we don't want you to behave badly when discussing truth? If one can't make a point without name calling or personalizing the argument, then he either has a weak argument (one that the facts do not support) or is too lazy to present the facts supporting his postition.
Whether you name call the wording or the author proves the same -- a weakness in the opposing debate.
>We separate words from personage and pretend that criticism of one is ad >hom while criticism of the other is not. A meaningless distinction to my >way of thinking.
The fact that you cannot see the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the argumenter in no way makes the practice acceptable. John, proper argumentation and presentation of facts is entirely possible without maligning the individuals in the discussion. We are trying to encourage individuals to that standard.
>We separate words from personage and pretend that criticism of one is ad >hom while criticism of the other is not. A meaningless distinction to my >way of thinking.
The fact that you cannot see the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the argumenter in no way makes the practice acceptable. John, proper argumentation and presentation of facts is entirely possible without maligning the individuals in the discussion. We are trying to encourage individuals to that standard.
Let's say that this presentation from you is idiotic, moronic on point and heretical to the core. Would any of this qualify as ad hom? I think so. One cannot write something that is idiotic, moronic and heretical WITHOUT BEING SUCH AT THE TIME> To separate wording from character is only a legaistic maneuver. Why in the world do you think so many have been offended by those who hold to this above definition? But this is not the point of this discussion. Gary offered a criticism that meets the criteria of those who do the same but scream the loudest when the tables are turned IMO. The "evidence" was the very wording of the participant - Gary, as a teacher, actually believi
ng that we will read and figure it out for ourselves. Has he misguessed as to the intuitive abilities of his audience -- perhaps so.
Your confusion may be because the ad hominem argument is not enforced uniformly on TT. Some are allowed (or missed), while others are pointed out. In a formal moderated debate there is one argument, and one moderator, and each statement can be considered. But, in a forum where comments are being made in mutiple threads simultaneously, 24-7, and one moderator that has limited time to consider and respond to each, it is impossible to catch them all. So, some decision has to be made as to which ones are allowed to pass, and which ones get comments. I try to catch the ones that are intentionally hurtful, or are very obvious. This is a personal decision based on my own understanding about what consti tutes an ad hominem and what does not. I am sure no one agrees 100% with my decisions. Some are gracious about it, though, and some are resentful.
Your confusion may be because the ad hominem argument is not enforced uniformly on TT. Some are allowed (or missed), while others are pointed out. In a formal moderated debate there is one argument, and one moderator, and each statement can be considered. But, in a forum where comments are being made in mutiple threads simultaneously, 24-7, and one moderator that has limited time to consider and respond to each, it is impossible to catch them all. So, some decision has to be made as to which ones are allowed to pass, and which ones get comments. I try to catch the ones that are intentionally hurtful, or are very obvious. This is a personal decision based on my own understanding about what consti tutes an ad hominem and what does not. I am sure no one agrees 100% with my decisions. Some are gracious about it, though, and some are resentful.
I don't think this is my problem. I have watched others insult one person after another while defending themselves from attack by referencing this convoluted definition. Anytime I write something that is "heretical," I, myself, am a heretic at that point. It simply cannot be otherwise. And when you (editorially speaking) call my teaching heretical (as I have of others) or meaningless tautology, you have insulted me or anyone and not just our writings.
And why, pray tell, is heretical, or carnal minded, or doctrine of men, or meaningless tautology even necessary ? It NEVER is important to the discussion at hand. Never. So why argue for a rule that allows such? What are we protecting , here? Nothing of value to a forum such as this. So why use the biblical concept, for a change, of avoiding the very appearance of wrong doing?
JD
ad hominem regardless of whether it >is true or false.
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
> >Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:58:11 -0400
> >
> >Not ad hom if a true observation. Gary is making a point that you > >apparently miss.
> >
> >JD
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:25:00 -0400
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
> >
> >
> >Gary wrote:
> > > you aren't God--you're a God-manipulator
> >
> >Argumentum Ad Hominem
> >
> >Peace be with you.
> >David Miller.
> >----------
> >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > >know how
> >you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlo ry.org
> >
> >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > >friend
> >who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >and
> >he will be subscribed.
>
>----------
>"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >http://www.InnGlory.org
>
>If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
JD
ad hominem regardless of whether it >is true or false.
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
> >Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:58:11 -0400
> >
> >Not ad hom if a true observation. Gary is making a point that you > >apparently miss.
> >
> >JD
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:25:00 -0400
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
> >
> >
> >Gary wrote:
> > > you aren't God--you're a God-manipulator
> >
> >Argumentum Ad Hominem
> >
> >Peace be with you.
> >David Miller.
> >----------
> >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > >know how
> >you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlo ry.org
> >
> >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > >friend
> >who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >and
> >he will be subscribed.
>
>----------
>"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >http://www.InnGlory.org
>
>If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
