From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 10:58:39 MST
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 12:09:43PM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Ad hominem means "against the man" rather than against the argument. It
> claims that a person is 100% erroneous and can never make a correct
> statement ever. Simply by recognizing the person as 100% erroneous, we
If someone is a proven liar, and they're asking you to take some statement of
theirs on faith, it seems reasonable to point out that they've lied in the
past and shouldn't be believed without hard hard evidence. Vs. someone who'd
been scrupulously honest in the past. What does debate theory say to do in
this case? Is it ad hominem to point out the past lies?
I could see where the pure logic argument might be to take nothing on faith
from anyone ever, but the world doesn't work so cleanly.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 11:05:50 MST