[MD] Quality decline in U.S. politics

[ian glendinning]

Platt inserted ...

On 7/18/07, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> 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.
[Ian] Of course I noticed, you even cited the quote, that's why I
didn't need it; I'm as familiar with it as you are, and it was
irrelevant to my point. However "in case you didn't notice" is (ad
hominem) suggesting I'm stupid.

>
> > 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."

[Ian] Good, I wasn't talking about the sun, I was talking about your
morals. You were the subject of my argument. That has nothing to do
with ad hominem.

>
> > 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?

[Ian] More representative of its values than you, more OK than you, if
you must. No absolute truths here.

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

[Ian] So again Platt, pat yourself on the back ... ATFQ - where did I
ever call you "stupid" - you immoral, ignorant liar ? I'm not
suggesting that as part of some rhetorical trick, I'm explicitly
asserting it.

On second thoughts don't bother to ATFQ, and I won't bother.
Ian

>
> 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/
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>