| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"sgeo" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2006 06:19:59 PM |
| Object: |
ad hominem |
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
20 Jan 2006 08:44:23 PM |
|
|
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're off
their meds / a total drooling moron / a complete blithering idiot / a
fucking bigoted ***** / a dipshit republican / etc then it's not an ad
hom.
An ad hominem is not the same as an insult.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
21 Jan 2006 04:03:14 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps
no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're off
their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise? Why would you be saying someone is "off his
meds" if not to try to undermine what he says? Aren't personal attacks
(argument _ad hominem_) just a lame attempt to discredit the statements of
the other by questioning the character of the other, to attempt to change
the subject from the issue genuinely under discussion to the alleged
despicable character of the other, to attempt to start a flame war instead
of sticking to the issue, in other words just another form of the fallacy of
diversion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion."
-- http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
23 Jan 2006 04:43:50 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and not
to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps
no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're off
their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise? I'm sorry, do you mean to suggest that a listener is
justified in assigning an arbitrary premise to any comment he hears, and
then dismiss his opponent's argument based on that arbitrary premise?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
23 Jan 2006 07:03:38 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and not
to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps
no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not
make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're off
their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
23 Jan 2006 11:52:16 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvudnUYNZeRw4UjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and not
to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps
no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls,
don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not
make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're off
their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
What's a matter, dog eat your homework?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
24 Jan 2006 02:22:42 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IrGdnSl_SroXXUjenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvudnUYNZeRw4UjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and
not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps
no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls,
don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not
make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're
off their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
What's a matter, dog eat your homework?
Didn't you question the term, 'unstated premise' as though you had never
heard of it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
24 Jan 2006 03:43:28 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:V6GdnQvE580PEUvenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IrGdnSl_SroXXUjenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvudnUYNZeRw4UjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and
not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps
no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls,
don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not
make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're
off their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
What's a matter, dog eat your homework?
Didn't you question the term, 'unstated premise' as though you had never
heard of it?
And then you offered a random link. What's your point?
Please answer my question: I'm sorry, do you mean to suggest that a listener
is
justified in assigning an arbitrary premise to any comment he hears, and
then dismiss his opponent's argument based on that arbitrary premise?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
25 Jan 2006 11:12:54 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:VtednbMfnK0cAkvenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:V6GdnQvE580PEUvenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IrGdnSl_SroXXUjenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvudnUYNZeRw4UjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and
not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps
no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls,
don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not
make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're
off their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
What's a matter, dog eat your homework?
Didn't you question the term, 'unstated premise' as though you had never
heard of it?
And then you offered a random link.
The link is not 'random', this page covers what we are discussing, the page
linked to
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>
shows clear examples of unstated premises, a term with which you are not
familiar?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
25 Jan 2006 01:32:07 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:utidnS1xkLkOLEreRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:VtednbMfnK0cAkvenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:V6GdnQvE580PEUvenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IrGdnSl_SroXXUjenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvudnUYNZeRw4UjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and
not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps
no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls,
don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points,
not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're
off their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
What's a matter, dog eat your homework?
Didn't you question the term, 'unstated premise' as though you had never
heard of it?
And then you offered a random link.
The link is not 'random', this page covers what we are discussing, the
page linked to
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>
shows clear examples of unstated premises, a term with which you are not
familiar?
I'm familiar with the term unstated premise. I was expressing bewilderment
over your accusation that I employed it.
None of the examples of unstated premise in the link you provided are
similar to anything I said. According to the examples, if the unstated
premise had been "You're a fucking idiot, so your argument is wrong," I
would have said something like "Only a fucking idiot would offer an argument
like that."
Of course, you will snip everything but my first sentence and respond only
to that, so why do I bother.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
25 Jan 2006 03:08:42 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:sd2dndA-4ZarT0reRVn-rQ@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:utidnS1xkLkOLEreRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:VtednbMfnK0cAkvenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:V6GdnQvE580PEUvenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IrGdnSl_SroXXUjenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvudnUYNZeRw4UjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*,
and not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication"
helps no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls,
don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points,
not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE
they're off their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
What's a matter, dog eat your homework?
Didn't you question the term, 'unstated premise' as though you had
never heard of it?
And then you offered a random link.
The link is not 'random', this page covers what we are discussing, the
page linked to
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>
shows clear examples of unstated premises, a term with which you are not
familiar?
I'm familiar with the term unstated premise. I was expressing bewilderment
over your accusation that I employed it.
None of the examples of unstated premise in the link you provided are
similar to anything I said.
See example 1.
Example 1:
Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
The only difference is that instead of arguing that the other should be
listened to, because he is a philosopher, and philosophers are highly
intelligent, you argue the opposite:
1. Person P is a fucking idiot
2. (unstated) fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements
Therefore,
3. Don't pay any attention to any statements by person P
According to the examples, if the unstated premise had been "You're a
fucking idiot, so your argument is wrong," I would have said something
like "Only a fucking idiot would offer an argument like that."
"Your argument is bogus" is the unstated premise, isn't it? That's what
makes it argument _ad hominem_ isn't it?
Of course, you will snip everything but my first sentence and respond only
to that, so why do I bother.
Isn't that just more argument _ad hominem_ on your part, that anyone who
questions your behavior here must be "a fucking idiot," not worth the
bother? Haven't you ever simply admitted you were mistaken, not even once in
your whole life?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
25 Jan 2006 03:44:58 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:BNidnZDzaftLdUreRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:sd2dndA-4ZarT0reRVn-rQ@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:utidnS1xkLkOLEreRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:VtednbMfnK0cAkvenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:V6GdnQvE580PEUvenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IrGdnSl_SroXXUjenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvudnUYNZeRw4UjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*,
and not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication"
helps no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to
trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points,
not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE
they're off their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
What's a matter, dog eat your homework?
Didn't you question the term, 'unstated premise' as though you had
never heard of it?
And then you offered a random link.
The link is not 'random', this page covers what we are discussing, the
page linked to
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>
shows clear examples of unstated premises, a term with which you are not
familiar?
I'm familiar with the term unstated premise. I was expressing
bewilderment over your accusation that I employed it.
None of the examples of unstated premise in the link you provided are
similar to anything I said.
See example 1.
Example 1:
Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
The only difference is that instead of arguing that the other should be
listened to, because he is a philosopher, and philosophers are highly
intelligent, you argue the opposite:
1. Person P is a fucking idiot
Where's the other half of the statement, like in example one?
2. (unstated) fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements
No. Sorry. According to the example I would have had to say "Bullet is a
fucking idiot, so he can't put together meaningful statements."
Since I didn't include "so he can't put together meaningful statements" the
fact is that you just arbitrarily made it up that unstated premise.
Therefore,
3. Don't pay any attention to any statements by person P
But since I didn't say "Bullet is a fucking idiot, so he can't put together
meaningful statements." your example is void.
According to the examples, if the unstated premise had been "You're a
fucking idiot, so your argument is wrong," I would have said something
like "Only a fucking idiot would offer an argument like that."
"Your argument is bogus" is the unstated premise, isn't it?
No, that's something you made up. Your argument is bogus for completely
different reasons.
That's what makes it argument _ad hominem_ isn't it?
No. Making up an arbitrary ustated premise like you're doing is called a
strawman.
Of course, you will snip everything but my first sentence and respond
only to that, so why do I bother.
Isn't that just more argument _ad hominem_ on your part,
No, you did exactly that to several of my posts. I'm just playing the odds.
that anyone who questions your behavior here must be "a fucking idiot,"
not worth the bother?
Only if they can't justify their objections with a rational argument.
Haven't you ever simply admitted you were mistaken, not even once in your
whole life?
Of course! Many times. On this very usenet group. You want actual quotes? I
can supply 'em.
Now the question is: Have you? On this very newsgroup?
Ever?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
25 Jan 2006 04:24:44 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:g72dndV6yI_HbEreRVn-oA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:BNidnZDzaftLdUreRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:sd2dndA-4ZarT0reRVn-rQ@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:utidnS1xkLkOLEreRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:VtednbMfnK0cAkvenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:V6GdnQvE580PEUvenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IrGdnSl_SroXXUjenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvudnUYNZeRw4UjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*,
and not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication"
helps no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to
trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points,
not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE
they're off their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
What's a matter, dog eat your homework?
Didn't you question the term, 'unstated premise' as though you had
never heard of it?
And then you offered a random link.
The link is not 'random', this page covers what we are discussing, the
page linked to
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>
shows clear examples of unstated premises, a term with which you are
not familiar?
I'm familiar with the term unstated premise. I was expressing
bewilderment over your accusation that I employed it.
None of the examples of unstated premise in the link you provided are
similar to anything I said.
See example 1.
Example 1:
Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
The only difference is that instead of arguing that the other should be
listened to, because he is a philosopher, and philosophers are highly
intelligent, you argue the opposite:
1. Person P is a fucking idiot
Where's the other half of the statement, like in example one?
What 'other half'? In example 1, premise 1 is
1. Doug is a philosopher
Your first premise is:
1. Bullet is a fucking idiot
The "other half" you are looking for is the unstated premise, 2:
2. (unstated) fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements
No. Sorry. According to the example I would have had to say "Bullet is a
fucking idiot, so he can't put together meaningful statements."
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the unstated
permise. That's why it is argument _ad hominem. See it now?
See <http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm> for an explanation of the
term, and examples.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
25 Jan 2006 04:52:48 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:LfCdncHwTv41Z0renZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:g72dndV6yI_HbEreRVn-oA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:BNidnZDzaftLdUreRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:sd2dndA-4ZarT0reRVn-rQ@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:utidnS1xkLkOLEreRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:VtednbMfnK0cAkvenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:V6GdnQvE580PEUvenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IrGdnSl_SroXXUjenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvudnUYNZeRw4UjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YpWdnannp8i8wUjeRVn-gA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nNudnb5AMKrxMk_eRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*,
and not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication"
helps no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to
trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those
points, not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE
they're off their meds
Isn't that the unstated premise?
Unstated premise?
A term with which you are not familiar? For examples, please see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
What's a matter, dog eat your homework?
Didn't you question the term, 'unstated premise' as though you had
never heard of it?
And then you offered a random link.
The link is not 'random', this page covers what we are discussing, the
page linked to
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>
shows clear examples of unstated premises, a term with which you are
not familiar?
I'm familiar with the term unstated premise. I was expressing
bewilderment over your accusation that I employed it.
None of the examples of unstated premise in the link you provided are
similar to anything I said.
See example 1.
Example 1:
Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
The only difference is that instead of arguing that the other should be
listened to, because he is a philosopher, and philosophers are highly
intelligent, you argue the opposite:
1. Person P is a fucking idiot
Where's the other half of the statement, like in example one?
What 'other half'? In example 1, premise 1 is
1. Doug is a philosopher
You are correct. I apologise. I mistakenly assumed you were paraphrasing the
statement, and not the first premise.
That statement in example 1 is: "Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly
intelligent."
Please note that the statement includes two parts. The first is that "Doug
is a philosopher", the second is "so he must be highly intelligent"
The equivalent statement by me would have to include those two parts. The
first would be "Bullet is a fucking idiot", and the second would have to be
"so he can't put together meaningful statements".
But I don't say that, do I? I simply say "Bullet is a fucking idiot" and do
not include the second part.
Thus your comparison is invalid.
Your first premise is:
1. Bullet is a fucking idiot
The "other half" you are looking for is the unstated premise, 2:
2. (unstated) fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements
No. The examples of the unstated premise do not give you carte blanche to to
invent any arbitrary premise you wish. Note that in the statements, the
unstated premise is made evident in so many words.
No. Sorry. According to the example I would have had to say "Bullet is a
fucking idiot, so he can't put together meaningful statements."
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the unstated
permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That's why it is argument _ad hominem. See it now?
All I see is a strawman.
And by the way, note that I have the intellectual honesty to admit when I'm
wrong, as I did above.
We'll see if you have the same.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
25 Jan 2006 06:02:11 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the unstated
permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't put
together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise', just like the
examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
25 Jan 2006 09:51:46 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B7adnbyfGqnijEXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the
unstated permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't put
together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise', just like
the examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
That's funny, in example 1 the unstated premise seems to be stated quite
clearly in the statement.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
26 Jan 2006 10:21:23 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:8JqdnV8MZcnM2kXenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B7adnbyfGqnijEXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the
unstated permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't put
together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise', just like
the examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
That's funny, in example 1 the unstated premise seems to be stated quite
clearly in the statement.
You are mistaken, "2. Philosophers are highly intelligent (unstated)" is the
unstated premise in example 1. It provides the logical link between premise
one and the conclusion. See it now?
Example 1:
Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
Hope this helps,
Bullet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: ad hominem |
26 Jan 2006 01:25:51 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:zqGdnWBf4PFna0XenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:8JqdnV8MZcnM2kXenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B7adnbyfGqnijEXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the
unstated permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't put
together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise', just like
the examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
That's funny, in example 1 the unstated premise seems to be stated quite
clearly in the statement.
You are mistaken, "2. Philosophers are highly intelligent (unstated)" is
the unstated premise in example 1. It provides the logical link between
premise one and the conclusion. See it now?
Let's go at it one step at a time.
Example 1:
Statement: Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
Statement: Bullet is a fucking idiot, so he can't put together meaningful
statements.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
1. Bullet is a fucking idiot.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
2. Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
3. Bullet can't put together meaningful statements.
Hope this helps,
Yes, since my statement was NOT "Bullet is a fucking idiot, so he can't put
together meaningful statements" your example fails.
In other words, what happens to the example if the statement is just this:
Doug is a Philosopher.
Premise 1: Doug is a philosopher.
Premise 2: __________
Please, by all means, fill in the blank.
Gosh, premise 2 could be anything! It could be philosophers are highly
intelligent, it could be philosophers are pedantic navel-gazing assholes, it
could even be Bullet is a fucking idiot, we have no way of knowing.
"See it now?"
"Hope this helps,"
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
27 Jan 2006 10:47:31 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:roadnaSIa-0tvETeRVn-rw@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:zqGdnWBf4PFna0XenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:8JqdnV8MZcnM2kXenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B7adnbyfGqnijEXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the
unstated permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't put
together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise', just like
the examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
That's funny, in example 1 the unstated premise seems to be stated quite
clearly in the statement.
You are mistaken, "2. Philosophers are highly intelligent (unstated)" is
the unstated premise in example 1. It provides the logical link between
premise one and the conclusion. See it now?
Let's go at it one step at a time.
That's what I am trying to do, but you seem to be trying to evade this first
issue! We can't proceed to anything else until we get you straightened out
on this first issue.
You said,
"In example 1 the unstated premise [Philosophers are highly intelligent]
seems to be stated quite clearly in the statement [Doug is a philosopher, so
he must be highly intelligent]."
See the difference now?
What you said is not true; the unstated premise (2), "Philosophers are
highly intelligent" is NOT stated, it is the UNSTATED premise. It is IMPLIED
by the argument. Please read the example again, slowly, and you will see
that you were mistaken. (It's okay to admit you were mistaken. We are all
human.)
Example 1:
Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
Your argument is just the opposite of this example, instead of arguing that
the other is highly intelligent, you argue that he is an idiot, and the
unstated premise in your argument _ad hominem_ (your dismissal of others as
idiots) is that idiots do not put together arguments that are worthy of a
response.
Now if you can't just be honest and admit you were mistaken concerning this
first point, then we have no common basis for discussion of anything. If
that is the case, then ta ta, and have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
27 Jan 2006 12:24:37 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dNCdnaPURZAF00feRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:roadnaSIa-0tvETeRVn-rw@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:zqGdnWBf4PFna0XenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:8JqdnV8MZcnM2kXenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B7adnbyfGqnijEXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the
unstated permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't put
together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise', just
like the examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
That's funny, in example 1 the unstated premise seems to be stated
quite clearly in the statement.
You are mistaken, "2. Philosophers are highly intelligent (unstated)" is
the unstated premise in example 1. It provides the logical link between
premise one and the conclusion. See it now?
Let's go at it one step at a time.
That's what I am trying to do, but you seem to be trying to evade this
first issue! We can't proceed to anything else until we get you
straightened out on this first issue.
YOU SNIPPED MY WHOLE FUCKING POST YOU DISHONEST PIECE OF *****.
If completely ignoring all points of a person's argument is the level of
dishonest debate you use, then ***** you.
This is over.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
27 Jan 2006 12:35:23 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:M8qdnY7kKYT_-EfeRVn-uQ@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dNCdnaPURZAF00feRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:roadnaSIa-0tvETeRVn-rw@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:zqGdnWBf4PFna0XenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:8JqdnV8MZcnM2kXenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B7adnbyfGqnijEXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the
unstated permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't put
together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise', just
like the examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
That's funny, in example 1 the unstated premise seems to be stated
quite clearly in the statement.
You are mistaken, "2. Philosophers are highly intelligent (unstated)"
is the unstated premise in example 1. It provides the logical link
between premise one and the conclusion. See it now?
Let's go at it one step at a time.
That's what I am trying to do, but you seem to be trying to evade this
first issue! We can't proceed to anything else until we get you
straightened out on this first issue.
YOU SNIPPED MY WHOLE FUCKING POST
Please try to stay calm, son. Can we talk? You suggested, "Let's go at it
one step at a time." That's what I am trying to do, but you seem to be
trying to evade this very first issue!
We can't proceed to anything else until we get you straightened out on this
first issue.
Now let's just settle down, sip some warm tea or something, and try it one
more time, without shouting at one another, what do you say?
You said,
"In example 1 the unstated premise [Philosophers are highly intelligent]
seems to be stated quite clearly in the statement [Doug is a philosopher, so
he must be highly intelligent]."
What you said is not true; the unstated premise (2), "Philosophers are
highly intelligent" is NOT stated, it is the UNSTATED premise. It is IMPLIED
by the argument. Please read the example again, slowly, and you will see
that you were mistaken. (It's okay to admit you were mistaken. We are all
human.)
Example 1:
Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
Your argument is just the opposite of this example, instead of arguing that
the other is highly intelligent, you argue that he is an idiot, and the
unstated premise in your argument _ad hominem_ (your dismissal of others as
idiots) is that idiots do not put together arguments that are worthy of a
response.
Now if you can't just be honest and admit you were mistaken concerning this
first point, then we have no common basis for discussion of anything. If
that is the case, then ta ta, and have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
27 Jan 2006 11:08:17 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:brqdnd-g86AFHEfenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:M8qdnY7kKYT_-EfeRVn-uQ@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dNCdnaPURZAF00feRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:roadnaSIa-0tvETeRVn-rw@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:zqGdnWBf4PFna0XenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:8JqdnV8MZcnM2kXenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B7adnbyfGqnijEXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the
unstated permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't
put together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise',
just like the examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
That's funny, in example 1 the unstated premise seems to be stated
quite clearly in the statement.
You are mistaken, "2. Philosophers are highly intelligent (unstated)"
is the unstated premise in example 1. It provides the logical link
between premise one and the conclusion. See it now?
Let's go at it one step at a time.
That's what I am trying to do, but you seem to be trying to evade this
first issue! We can't proceed to anything else until we get you
straightened out on this first issue.
YOU SNIPPED MY WHOLE FUCKING POST
Please try to stay calm, son. Can we talk?
No. You snipped all my points, you pinheaded troll!
You suggested, "Let's go at it one step at a time." That's what I am
trying to do, but you seem to be trying to evade this very first issue!
You never addressed my points. I didn't type them out for the fucking
excercise, you dipshit.
We can't proceed to anything else until we get you straightened out on
this first issue.
Address this or admit defeat:
Statement: Doug is a philosopher.
Premise 1: Doug is a philosopher.
Unstated premise: ________________
Fill in the fucking blank and justify it. Do it or shut the ***** up.
I hereby snip the rest of your fucking post. Hope you fucking like it, you
*****.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
28 Jan 2006 06:19:16 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:3NKdnckEH8-iYUfeRVn-uA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:brqdnd-g86AFHEfenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:M8qdnY7kKYT_-EfeRVn-uQ@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dNCdnaPURZAF00feRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:roadnaSIa-0tvETeRVn-rw@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:zqGdnWBf4PFna0XenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:8JqdnV8MZcnM2kXenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B7adnbyfGqnijEXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the
unstated permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't
put together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise',
just like the examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
That's funny, in example 1 the unstated premise seems to be stated
quite clearly in the statement.
You are mistaken, "2. Philosophers are highly intelligent (unstated)"
is the unstated premise in example 1. It provides the logical link
between premise one and the conclusion. See it now?
Let's go at it one step at a time.
That's what I am trying to do, but you seem to be trying to evade this
first issue! We can't proceed to anything else until we get you
straightened out on this first issue.
YOU SNIPPED MY WHOLE FUCKING POST
Please try to stay calm, son. Can we talk?
No. You snipped all my points, you pinheaded troll!
You suggested, "Let's go at it one step at a time." That's what I am
trying to do, but you seem to be trying to evade this very first issue!
You never addressed my points.
I am trying to question you about them one at a time, as per your
suggestion, above.
Now can we calm down, and talk straight, like adults do, Denis?
The first issue is that you said, quote,
"In example 1 the unstated premise [Philosophers are highly intelligent]
seems to be stated quite clearly in the statement [Doug is a philosopher, so
he must be highly intelligent]."
What you said is not true; the unstated premise (2), "Philosophers are
highly intelligent" is NOT stated, it is the UNSTATED premise. It is IMPLIED
by the argument. Please read the example again, slowly, and you will see
that you were mistaken. (It's okay to admit you were mistaken. We are all
human.)
Example 1:
Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
Your argument is just the opposite of this example, instead of arguing that
the other is highly intelligent, you argue that he is an idiot, a pinheaded
troll, and the unstated premise in your argument _ad hominem_ (your
dismissal of others as idiots) is that idiots do not put together posts that
are worthy of a response.
Now can we talk seriously about this issue of unstated premises, or do you
want to limit the discussion to what a pinheaded troll you think I am?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
28 Jan 2006 06:35:39 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rqqdnalPCflvlEHeRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:3NKdnckEH8-iYUfeRVn-uA@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:brqdnd-g86AFHEfenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:M8qdnY7kKYT_-EfeRVn-uQ@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dNCdnaPURZAF00feRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:roadnaSIa-0tvETeRVn-rw@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:zqGdnWBf4PFna0XenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:8JqdnV8MZcnM2kXenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B7adnbyfGqnijEXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote
<snip to the heart of the matter>
"Fucking idiots can't put together meaningful statements" is the
unstated permise.
No it isn't. I never mentioned meaningful statements.
That is correct, you didn't have to mention 'Fucking idiots can't
put together meaningful statements', it is an 'UNSTATED premise',
just like the examples in
<http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm>, see the issue now?
That's funny, in example 1 the unstated premise seems to be stated
quite clearly in the statement.
You are mistaken, "2. Philosophers are highly intelligent
(unstated)" is the unstated premise in example 1. It provides the
logical link between premise one and the conclusion. See it now?
Let's go at it one step at a time.
That's what I am trying to do, but you seem to be trying to evade this
first issue! We can't proceed to anything else until we get you
straightened out on this first issue.
YOU SNIPPED MY WHOLE FUCKING POST
Please try to stay calm, son. Can we talk?
No. You snipped all my points, you pinheaded troll!
You suggested, "Let's go at it one step at a time." That's what I am
trying to do, but you seem to be trying to evade this very first issue!
You never addressed my points.
I am trying to question you about them one at a time, as per your
suggestion, above.
I gave you a single question to answer. A single example to address.
Did you do it? No, you couldn't address it so you snipped my entire post
again. You dismissed my entire post in a big cowardly snip, rather than
admit you could not address my question.
This clearly answers the question about who and who can't admit when they're
wrong.
Now can we calm down, and talk straight, like adults do, Denis?
So adults where you come from do not listen to the other side? Adults where
you come from just talk over the other person? Adults where you come from
just keep repeating their assertions and never directly address valid
objections?
I don't like adults where you come from.
***** you, and ***** your adults.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
30 Jan 2006 02:30:37 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
...
***** you ...
In your dreams. Now why don't you just calm down and deal honestly with the
first issue here, Denis? Don't you think that would make you look better to
the readers of Usenet?
The first issue is that you said, quote,
"In example 1 the unstated premise [Philosophers are highly intelligent]
seems to be stated quite clearly in the statement [Doug is a philosopher, so
he must be highly intelligent]."
What you said is not true; the unstated premise (2), "Philosophers are
highly intelligent" is NOT stated, it is the UNSTATED premise. It is IMPLIED
by the argument. Please read the example again, slowly, and you will see
that you were mistaken. (It's okay to admit you were mistaken. We are all
human.)
Example 1:
Doug is a philosopher, so he must be highly intelligent.
1.. Doug is a philosopher.
2.. Philosophers are highly intelligent. (unstated)
Therefore,
3.. Doug is highly intelligent.
Your argument is just the opposite of this example, instead of arguing that
the other is highly intelligent, you argue that he is an idiot, a pinheaded
troll, and the unstated premise in your argument _ad hominem_ (your
dismissal of others as idiots) is that idiots do not put together posts that
are worthy of a response.
Now can we talk seriously about this issue of unstated premises, or do you
want to limit the discussion to what a pinheaded troll you think I am?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
30 Jan 2006 03:07:17 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ndWdnWPxguHz6kPenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
...
***** you ...
In your dreams. Now why don't you just calm down and deal honestly with
the first issue here, Denis?
Answer this question: What is the unstated premise in the statement "Doug is
a philosopher"?
That's all. I will not respond to anything else until you answer this
single, simple, question.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
30 Jan 2006 05:18:06 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ndWdnWPxguHz6kPenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
...
***** you ...
In your dreams. Now why don't you just calm down and deal honestly with
the first issue here, Denis?
Answer this question: What is the unstated premise in the statement "Doug is
a philosopher"?
One unstated "premise" or presumption, is that, in some sense, Doug
is, that is, Doug exists. However, we can say such things as
"Superman can leap tall buildings" without great damage to the concept
of existence, so the sense in which Superman -- and Doug -- exists, is
contextual or frame-dependent. Superman exists as a fictional
character to whom certain capabilities are ascribed and can be argued
for their reasonableness. So might the same be said for Doug.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
30 Jan 2006 06:24:13 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5a7tt1hgppgioo4k0isqm1afe5gvbsqvtp@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ndWdnWPxguHz6kPenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
...
***** you ...
In your dreams. Now why don't you just calm down and deal honestly with
the first issue here, Denis?
Answer this question: What is the unstated premise in the statement "Doug
is
a philosopher"?
One unstated "premise" or presumption, is that, in some sense, Doug
is, that is, Doug exists. However, we can say such things as
"Superman can leap tall buildings" without great damage to the concept
of existence, so the sense in which Superman -- and Doug -- exists, is
contextual or frame-dependent. Superman exists as a fictional
character to whom certain capabilities are ascribed and can be argued
for their reasonableness. So might the same be said for Doug.
--- Jim07D6
Denis and friends don't believe there can be unstated premises in argument
_ad hominem_. Denis argues that if the premise is not actually stated
outright, even though it is implied by the argument and the argument doesn't
make any sense without it, then it does not constitute argument _ad
hominem_:
"As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're off
their meds / a total drooling moron / a complete blithering idiot / a
fucking bigoted ***** / a dipshit republican / etc then it's not an ad
hom." -- Denis
But that is the unstated premise, that the arguments of blithering idiots
aren't worth listening to.
For a discussion of unstated premises see
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99115L2.htm
Here is the post from Denis that started this discussion:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:L8adnQQR6uiYPUzeRVn-vQ@io.com...
"sgeo" <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:P6fAf.2814$e9.2396@fe12.lga...
Please remember at all times to reply to a person's *content*, and not to
who the person might be. A reply like "take your medication" helps
no-one.
If you don't want to spend energy construction a reply to trolls, don't
reply. The theists make points. We need to refute those points, not make
fun of the person, or even the way the points might be worded.
As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're off
their meds / a total drooling moron / a complete blithering idiot / a
fucking bigoted ***** / a dipshit republican / etc then it's not an ad
hom.
An ad hominem is not the same as an insult.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
30 Jan 2006 06:33:01 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5a7tt1hgppgioo4k0isqm1afe5gvbsqvtp@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ndWdnWPxguHz6kPenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
...
***** you ...
In your dreams. Now why don't you just calm down and deal honestly with
the first issue here, Denis?
Answer this question: What is the unstated premise in the statement "Doug
is
a philosopher"?
One unstated "premise" or presumption, is that, in some sense, Doug
is, that is, Doug exists. However, we can say such things as
"Superman can leap tall buildings" without great damage to the concept
of existence, so the sense in which Superman -- and Doug -- exists, is
contextual or frame-dependent. Superman exists as a fictional
character to whom certain capabilities are ascribed and can be argued
for their reasonableness. So might the same be said for Doug.
--- Jim07D6
Denis and friends don't believe there can be unstated premises in argument
_ad hominem_. Denis argues that if the premise is not actually stated
outright, even though it is implied by the argument and the argument doesn't
make any sense without it, then it does not constitute argument _ad
hominem_:
"As long as we don't claim their argument is invalid BECAUSE they're off
their meds / a total drooling moron / a complete blithering idiot / a
fucking bigoted ***** / a dipshit republican / etc then it's not an ad
hom." -- Denis
Oh. In reply to someone's assertion, bringing up the question that the
assertor is off his meds is, IMO, implying something about the state
of *the person* making the assertion, instead of implying something
about the assertion itself. So, I'd say it is ad hominem, "to (or at)
the man".
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
30 Jan 2006 10:28:58 PM |
|
|
In article <Sp6dnfmdsaOyM0PenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
Denis and friends don't believe there can be unstated premises in argument
_ad hominem_.
Not at all. They are merely saying that a statement ad hominem need not
be an argument ad hominem.
Whereas Septic is always careful to assure that his statements ad
hominem are also Argumenta ad Hominem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Ad hominem |
30 Jan 2006 07:09:41 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5a7tt1hgppgioo4k0isqm1afe5gvbsqvtp@4ax.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ndWdnWPxguHz6kPenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
...
***** you ...
In your dreams. Now why don't you just calm down and deal honestly with
the first issue here, Denis?
Answer this question: What is the unstated premise in the statement "Doug
is
a philosopher"?
One unstated "premise" or presumption, is that, in some sense, Doug
is, that is, Doug exists. However, we can say such things as
"Superman can leap tall buildings" without great damage to the concept
of existence, so the sense in which Superman -- and Doug -- exists, is
contextual or frame-dependent. Superman exists as a fictional
character to whom certain capabilities are ascribed and can be argued
for their reasonableness. So might the same be said for Doug.
Granted. But that's certainly not the unstated premise that Bullet needs to
further his argument.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
