Re: OT fallacies

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
> means.

The Latin "ad hominem" just means "to(wards) the man". I am ignorant of current developments in insultology.

[snip]
> 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?

Education.
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

What's your take on the purpose? Received on Sat Jun 03 2006 - 09:38:10 CEST