Re: OT fallacies
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:38:10 +0200
Keith H Duggar wrote:
>>>>Keith H Duggar wrote: >>>> >>>>>What BB wrote may be called an /insult/ but it is not >>>>>ad hominem since it is not even an argument.
> Unfortunately, mAsterdam, this loose usage of "ad hominem =
> any personal attack" is a relatively recent concoction of
> the ignorant masses. (See for example the discussion at
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html). Your equation
> "ad hominem = personal" above also shows that, in this case,
> you share this mass ignorance of what the Latin actually
The Latin "ad hominem" just means "to(wards) the man". I am ignorant of current developments in insultology.
> Therefore, follow not this modern VI fashion and quibble not
> with those educated in the actual meaning of the phrase.
> And the vociferously ignorant SEVERELY hamper the progress of
> human kind. How to deal with them efficiently is a difficult
> dilemma. And, unfortunately, cyberspace has provided them a
> fertile breeding ground. Do you have an suggestions?
Babies are our most valuable vociferous ignorants.
>>The insults /do/ constitute personal attacks. They are >>highly distracting, serve the same purpose as the logical >>fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html
> How do you know the purpose of those insults? I for one
> believe they served a /very/ different purpose having
> little to do with the argumentation here.
What's your take on the purpose? Received on Sat Jun 03 2006 - 09:38:10 CEST