On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:56:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel > > > > compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent > > > > post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the > > > > flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional. > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:21:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > This is ad hominem. > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:42:47AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > At no point did I suggest that he was wrong because of who he is. > > Your first line suggested exactly that. It was not supposed to, and I can't see any way to read it like that. > > I suggested that talking to him is a bad idea because of who he > > is. That's not an ad hominem argument - it's not even an > > argument. It's a perfectly normal insult. > > http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_abusive.htm This page is wrong. Argumentum ad hominem is "You're wrong because you're an idiot". It is not "You're an idiot, and you're also wrong", and it's definitely not "You're an idiot because you're wrong". [My original mail was the second of these three] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature