SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: spiral3 who wrote (70588)6/4/2008 7:43:13 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) of 542655
 
The point is, you missed his point.

I didn't miss his point, at least not once Cogito turned the light bulb on.

An ad hominem is not an even if proposition. It IS an attack on character.

I think you misread something. The reference for my "it" was apparently unclear. I meant "if the statement is relevant."

Sorry, but looking it up seems to have done nothing except reinforce your misunderstanding.

Excuse me? Looking it up produced a definition that that confirmed my understanding that ad hominems are distractions, not relevant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Call it arcane if you will, but that sounds like option A to me not option B.

I don't think so. I reason I don't think so is that this reinterpretation has no constructive utility. It complicates what is a straightforward and useful notion--the ad hominem character attack as intentional diversion from a losing argument. Why mess that up? So somebody with too much time on his hands can create an exception? Or maybe to create a further diversion when someone calls him on his use of an ad hominem? Yeah, that's just what the world needs--further complication for negative purposes. Nope. Unless you can identify some value that I missed, I'll stick with option B: baloney.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext