From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Wed Aug 21 2002 - 12:24:16 MDT
[Joe Dees]
Once again, the ad hominem attack; no refutation of the message, but an attack upon the messenger.
[rhinoceros]
But the subject of this post *is* the messenger.
Of course, if it was about a particular message of the messenger, that should be addressed on its own merit -- perhaps taking also into account the messenger's bias, special interest, previous lies, and other merits or shortcomings (see previous comments about Pravda).
[Joe Dees]
Okay, let's talk about the messenger - I mean the writer of not only the article posted but also the MEMRI article. This person has seemingly created a lucrative and publishable cottage industry for himself bashing neocons. Not that there's not plenty available to bash there, but ideas should not be accepted or dismissed depending upon the source's purported membership, or lack of it, in a lauded or despised group.
[rhinoceros]
In the context of this particular thread, that would be ad hominem.
[Joe Dees]
Either ad hominem against both accused neocons and the accsing article writer is acceptable, or it is acceptable against neither. Make up your mind. It cannot be acceptable against either but not the other.
[rhinoceros]
Yes, it can. Such are the wonders of argument.
Someone is discussing what someone else is and tries to classify him. This is an argument in itself. This is not ad hominem, because it is not supposed to counter any specific argument made by the second person.
But the first person makes a specific argument. If we counter this specific argument by trying to classify the first person, then we have an ad hominem,
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26206>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:54 MDT