[MD] Quality decline in U.S. politics

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:

> Platt, I don't need lectures from you on "ad hominem".

The lecture was from Pirsig in case you didn't notice.

> I've NEVER called you or your points "stupid".
> I quite legitimately say you are evil and dishonest, and constantly
> engaing in ad hominem digs. I (and Arlo it seems) choose to point out
> that dishonesty.

To say I am evil and dishonest is an ad hominem attack. It "does not tell us
about the condition of the sun."
 
> Platt, I referred to Arlo and myself, because those were the three
> people involved in the point ... ie I was talking to you about Arlo's
> mail .... so, yes I'm saying Arlo and I are on the OK side of you
> (IMHO natch).
> 
> It's only you I'm expressing opinions about, everyone else is err ...
> OK by me ... that is they are not the subject of any points in this
> correspondence.

But you do include yourself and Arlo as being "representative" of this
forum do you not? And you do think your words are OK, right? 

So pat yourself on the back. It's nice to have an ego. 

Platt   

> On 7/18/07, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> > Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > As I already pointed out Platt, that's not Ad Hominem in fact, but
> > > what would you care, so long as you can get in another prejudiced
> > > twisted dig at the motives of others.
> >
> > "To say that a comment is "stupid" is to imply that the person who makes it is
> > stupid. This is the "ad hominem" argument:   meaning,  "to the person." 
> Logically it
> > is irrelevant.  If Joe says the sun is shining and you argue that Joe is insane,
> or
> > Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what does this tell us about the condition of
> the sun?
> > "That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic texts say
> about
> > it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what may be an original
> > contribution.  It says the ad hominem argument is a form of evil.
> > The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into four parts: inorganic,
> biological,
> > and intellectual.  Once this analysis is made, the ad hominem argument can be
> defined
> > more clearly: It is an attempt destroy the intellectual  patterns of an
> individual by
> > attacking his social status.  In other words, a lower form of evolution is being
> used
> > to destroy a higher form.  That is evil.
> > "However the MOQ suggests that this only an intellectual evil.  In politics,
> for
> > example, to identify your political opponent as a former Nazi is not evil if
> he
> > really was a Nazi, because politics is a dominantly social activity rather than
> an
> > intellectual activity." Pirsig, Note 140 Lila's Child
> >
> > > Nowhere do I (or Arlo) suggest I (or we) are any kind of special
> > > representatives. I was talking about you. (I offer Arlo support as one
> > > individual human to another.)
> >
> > When you accuse me of not being representative you imply that you and Arlo
> are.
> > In other words, yours and Arlo's words are OK, mine are not OK. That's your
> shtick.
> >
> > > And, everyone please note, as predicted Platt did not even address the
> question.
> > > The evidence stands. The question unanswered.
> >
> > Arlo answered the question himself.
> >


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/