[Vision2020] Earmark and intial comments on Ralph's Religion and morality

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Phil et. al.

My comments on the definition of "argument ad hominem" were not aimed at your 
writing regarding Mr. Paul's thesis on religion's effects on various nations, 
but were general comments on the climate of discussion and debate in society 
in general, offered as an after thought, as I answered chasuk at gmail.com's 
question about the Latin phrase he was seeking, that describes an attack on the 
"reputation" of a thinker rather than "the substance," as chasuk at gmail.com 
phrased it in the quote below.

Perhaps chasuk at gmail.com might answer your specific questions regarding the 
complexities involved in the use of argument ad hominem, considering that he 
recently introduced this idea, without using the Latin phrase "ad hominem," or 
indicating on Vision2020 that this was/is the Latin phrase he was looking for.  
I should hesitate to declare he introduced the idea of "argument ad hominem," 
since chasuk at gmail.com has not agreed, that I have found on Vision2020, that 
this is indeed the Latin phrase he was looking for.

chasuk at gmail.com wrote on 10/1/05:

My first comment about this thread, formed as a question: does anyone
else find this sort of sniping childish, and more than a little bit
tiresome?  My second comment: would you kindly attack the substance of
Mr. Paul's study, rather than his reputation?  I don't remember the
Latin which describes this type of fallacious logic; maybe Nick can
help me out here.
---------------------------

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051003/729e2166/attachment.htm