Re: OT fallacies

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:38:10 +0200
Message-ID: <44813bed$0$31642$>

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
> Your equation
> "ad hominem = personal" above also shows that, in this case,
> you share this mass ignorance of what the Latin actually
> means.

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

> 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

Original text of this message