Comments concerning Webster are correct, I am sure.
But I included the only definition Webster entertains in the referenced
work. One simply cannot say that the writing "is just plain stupid"
without casting doubt on the intellectual abilities of the author. "Barf" is not the man's name and Judy
speaks these words as would a well trained parrot.
She has so committed herself to the disgracing of Barth
as to render her comments bigoted
and biased -- words and judgments written
without personal knowing. I regard these words as both
ignorant and stupid -- and the glory of it all is that I get to say
such things without crossing the line of "ad hom" because I have limited my attack to her words and
not to her person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and
allows the kind of negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions .
John, there are
many dimensions to the
ad-hominem
argument on which Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad
hominem attack is most
often used on
TT is to demean
the opponent for 1) hoping to discredit them to the point that their
arguments seem
untrustworthy, 2)
to throw a red herring into the argument to avoid answering the
opponent's argument, and 3) is almost
alays
a sign of defeat in the argument.
...and "
Jezebel" is one such
ad-hominem.
While "Barf" for "Barth" is indeed an ad
hominem,
it is meant to discredit a third party to which the opponent has
referred as an authority. However, it is not intended to demean t he
opponent him/herself. Terry did the same by saying Calvin would make a
good Muslim. I do not consider these critical
ad-hominems since they are not intended to hurt or demean
other
TT members, although they
are still a poor technique in argumentation.
Side bar...in my recent survey of the
ad-hominem
reference I was surprised to find that it is, in some types of
arguments, regarded as an effective argument...and that was exclusively
in political debate.
Perry
>From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the a d
hom (Barf >for Karl Barth)
>Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:12:22 -0500
>
>Total chunky style barnyard. By the same lo gic, I can call you
Jezebel >Taylor and Kevin "Dunce
Deegan" and and so on. And "ad hom"
has no such >limitations except here on
TT. Ad hom is an attack on the person or words >of an
individual "rather than an appeal to pure reason" (Webster's
>Encyclopedic Dictionary.)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Judy Taylor <
jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
>To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>
Cc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
;
>Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:53:12 -0500
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom
(Barf >for Karl Barth )
>
>
>Oh Lance, I forgot to mention that I can not take credit for your
>descriptive subject line
>It is a n original
Kevinism
(if I remember correctly) but after perusing >some of the subject's
>theological ideas I found it appropriate.
>
>Remember ad hom is against the person. I don't know the man; my
comment >reflects my
>response to his theology which has been made very public..
>
----------
"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, se nd an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
unsubscribed< /SPAN>. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.