That wasn't "ad hominem".

Post #55,991 by Brandioch 10/10/02 12:28:12 PM Reply	That wasn't "ad hominem". "ad hominem" is when a personal attack is used in place of a factual refutal. He claimed that there was a wall extending along the East/West German border. I provided photographic evidence that such was NOT the case. He then tried to imply that the fault was mine because I did not accept his usage of "wall" to mean "fence with guard towers". #1. There was no wall where he said there was one. #2. Anyone who had been where he said he was, when he said he was there would have known that there was no wall there. #3. Since anyone there, during that time, would have known that there was no wall there, that means that: a. He wasn't there. b. He can't tell a wall from a fence. #4. Since he claimed he was there, and #2, then, he is not telling the truth. #5. Someone who does not tell the truth is a (fill in the blank). No. This wasn't an "ad hominem" attack. This was defining his character based upon his behaviour in this discussion. Cart before the horse. His statement. My factual refutation. His semantic games. My conclusion about his character.
Post #56,023 by Ashton 10/10/02 2:24:12 PM Reply	The semantic difference may not be the crux of that exchange though. I have to second Ross that, Dan is hardly arguing from the mindset of the standard jingoistic rabble - nor is he of their ilk. Maybe you haven't ever talked with him; I have - so you are at a disadvantage in trying to discern his 'agenda'. I can't concur with his take on this situation, of course. I believe (obv) that a decision to support the carte blanche this Admin has placed before the congress - is tantamount to congress' ceding its Constitutional authority. Illegally prima facie. I don't know what has brought Dan to believe that somehow the situation justifies such an extreme act, and to conceive that Iraq represents, on 10/10/02: that immediate threat to the US which is deemed "self defense" in its normal meaning. (For that is the ONLY situation in which we may both! be legitimate members of the UN AND unilaterally take bellicose action == we can't have that both ways) But whatever Dan is, it isn't Yahoo IMhO. FWIW. Ashton
Post #56,029 by Another Scott 10/10/02 2:52:07 PM Reply	You missed the point of my post. It's not necessary, nor appropriate IMHO, to use terms like "clueless moron" when debating with people here. It doesn't help your argument. How you can say that that's not [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=ad%20hominem\|ad hominem] is beyond me. Lighten up, please. Cheers, Scott.
Post #56,043 by Brandioch 10/10/02 3:44:09 PM Reply	Simple, it was after I had provided the rebuttal. It's not necessary, nor appropriate IMHO, to use terms like "clueless moron" when debating with people here. It doesn't help your argument. How you can say that that's not ad hominem [] is beyond me. Ad hominem (from your link): "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.*" Again, my conclusion about his character occured AFTER the debate. I did NOT base my rebuttal of his claim upon his character. I based it upon the photographic evidence that I provided. He then retreated into semantic games about what he ACTUALLY meant when he said "wall". From that exchange, I concluded that he was a liar. Note, that is my conclusion from the exchange. That is not a rebuttal of his position. I rebutted his position with the photographs. My conclusion as to his character occured AFTER the debate. Therefore, not an "ad hominem" attack. If I had based my rebuttal upon his being a liar, then it would be.
Post #56,052 by admin 10/10/02 4:18:35 PM Reply	Still missing the point: It isn't necessary to call people clueless morons. Please. Keep it civil. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #56,144 by Brandioch 10/11/02 7:25:49 AM Reply	So many things we do are not "necessary". It isn't necessary to call people clueless morons. Please. Keep it civil. Of course, my question would be whether it is "necessary" to identify someone who tells lies as a "liar". And so forth. It may not be necessary, but it is correct.
Post #56,157 by bepatient 10/11/02 8:35:32 AM Reply	And so it goes from the self-appointed knower of all things. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #56,327 by Ashton 10/12/02 4:27:49 AM Reply	What about the Hughes Loan? ..and - how about that WVa Senator - all by hisself! Byrd + Constitution VS Bush Dynasty + Corporate (OK - so it was no-conte$t.)
Post #56,343 by bepatient 10/12/02 8:20:30 AM Reply	? Yeah, that made sense here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #56,453 by Ashton 10/13/02 7:03:05 AM Reply	Ashleigh Brilliant In the end everything is related to everything else.
Post #56,472 by bepatient 10/13/02 10:21:41 AM Reply	I thought that... ...was called the Kevin Bacon game;) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!