Re: Ad hominem? I think not.

• Next message: John Clark: "Re: Ad hominem? I think not."
• Previous message: J. R. Molloy: "Re: If we do get Afghanistan, What shall we do with it?"
• In reply to: J. R. Molloy: "Re: Ad hominem? I think not."
• Next in thread: scerir: "Re: Ad hominem? I think not."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> > - ad hominem ("tu quoque"): this form of attack on the person notes
> > that a person does not practise what he preaches.
>
> I don't think there should be any rule against ad hominems against those who
> do not practice what they preach, do you?

"Hypocrisy" is only a sin to moral relativists, because it's the
only sin possible to them. To a moral absolutist, failure to live
up to one's goals is a natural consequence of setting worthwhile
goals; it's just ordinary human fallibility.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC

• Next message: John Clark: "Re: Ad hominem? I think not."
• Previous message: J. R. Molloy: "Re: If we do get Afghanistan, What shall we do with it?"
• In reply to: J. R. Molloy: "Re: Ad hominem? I think not."
• Next in thread: scerir: "Re: Ad hominem? I think not."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT