# *******Response to AF: Part One

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 03, 1999 at 07:18:21 {eZOTANvCI6rRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: ******Response to AF: Part One posted by Rational on November 03, 1999 at 06:14:13:

Rational

Your applied definition:

> appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. [Latin, ad, to + hominem, accusative of homo, man.] (Bold added by Friend)

Please note that appealing to personal considerations is the point. You have not demonstrated that I have appealed to your conduct or style (or any personal consideration) and you cannot because your accusation against me is a lie. Saying that someone acts as a weasel is not ad hominem unless you argue that because they act as a weasel their ideas are false or not worthy of consideration. The latter is an appeal to a personal consideration while the former is not. Have I ever asserted that your personal disposition(s) makes your ideas false or not worth considering as if the truth depended upon your virtues? You can choose to ignore your misconception on this salient point but I believe it represents a microcosm of other faulty reasoning on your part. The thread that you linked to earlier I believe is a case in point.

Anyone reading that thread can see that the discussion boiled down to germane, rudimentary and simple questions (the opposite of obfuscation) that you are not even willing to answer with a simple “Yes” or “No”, let alone defend those answers yet given. As far as obfuscation goes, regarding the supposed “serious mistake” mentioned in the Survival book, my position is the simplest of them all. As those unanswered questions illustrate, especially the first one.

Like so many others you have no problem making robust accusations but when called upon to put up or shut up you offer the passive milquetoast apology.

Perhaps I am being too hard on you. It is evident that you harbor misconceptions about some issues (in this case that which constitutes ad hominem). So, I do not believe you intended any ill deceit. You just did not know what you were talking about. For that I forgive with open arms. Believe me, life is too short to bicker over trivialities. Hopefully in the future you will be more careful just as we all should.

Friend

- Logic & Fallacies

Follow Ups:

- ********Response to AF: Part One Rational 09:13:06 11/03/99 (1)
  - *********Response to AF: Part One Friend 09:46:43 11/03/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ********Response to AF: Part One

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]