From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 02:29:36 MST
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:20:40 -0500, John K Clark <jonkc@att.net> wrote:
> "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
>
>> Ad hominem is *never* correct, John.
>
> Man, I really hate that silly phrase and you are wrong. It is Extropian
> to
> call something what it actually is and the fact is that on this small
> planet
> there exist life forms that are callous elitist self-absorbed imbeciles
> who
> are selfish, clueless and lie because they are intellectual Lilliputians.
Right. Ad hominem is never correct in an ideal frictionless volume of
discourse about logical propositions. Which almost no real world "debates",
or even scholastic forensics debates, really are. Rational arguments from
the wrong presuppositions yield _what_ sort of conclusions? Picking those
things apart methodically during a TV show measured in minutes does *what*
to the audience?
Telling a NAMBLA proponent *why* you don't want to accept his sponsorship
of your Gay Pride float, or telling a WWP staffer where to stick his ANSWER
coalition, is pointedly "toward the man" but IMO rather more justifiable
than some yahoo Wyoming junior college student telling his Philosophy 101
class he won't do his Boolean Algebra homework because the prof talks like
some sort of fag.
Expressing exasperation can mark more than exasperation; criticising the
man can short circuit a great deal of pointless amphigory. Or they can draw
battle lines and become just more smokescreen themselves. It all depends.
The best I can do, PCRishly, is to check my intentions, desired results,
and achieved results as objectively as possible as often as seems
profitable, and pay attention to news that indicates I might need to update
those parameters.
MMB
-- I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 02:37:52 MST