Right. What you wrote was an ad hominem. Had to be or you couldn't claim my inference was one. And that's why your complaint is funny.
Just a System
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
:yawn: I'm not here to teach you Logic 101 (Eph 4:14). :freak:
Aww, now you're just being cute with your ad homs.
You were accurate with calling your remark an ad hom. So at least we agree on something...which is something.
That will have legs when you do as you say.:yawn: Discuss issues not people.
These are ad hominems:
Now, for the record, I responded to your initial quotes with straight forward difference. It went where you wanted it to go the moment you failed to respond in the same spirit. You met my answer on point with a "Other countries have courts" bit that I STILL responded to in an attempt to draw you into something like a discussion. And your response to that was, predictably:
You want to be taken seriously and advance serious issues then you have to be willing to actually engage. If you aren't then you should consider a blog.
LondonCalling
New member
@ ‘TownHeretic’
Easy, Tiger
Might I suggest you’re just playing here. Clearly you get it, and he/she does not. Bit rude, I might suggest for you to just keep toying with an already slain prey (whether the prey knows it or not). There’s something, at least (and if only by virtue of events), which separates us from the beasts.
The Rule Of Law.
Oh, how glorious and imperfect it is.
It’s complex, it has a philosophical root which rips religion a brand new hole to inexpertly fill; that of evidence.
But you presumably know this. Yet avoid it in order to have some fun. Either educate the guy or don’t. Toying is undignified.
@ Serpentdove
The complicated bit about any and all of this, and the bit ‘TownHeretic’ is avoiding in berating you is that the system that exists is one that is post religion.
Most legal systems, and all those in the Western world (which includes SA) are built upon the post-christian model of The Enlightenment. Namely that of evidence and the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty (usually as stated by a jury of one’s peers, though that is not the case in this SA trial). The principle is sound, but the results can vary due to the subjective nature of the system. Modern civilisation has judged this system as more productive than the previous, arbitrary, systems applied by religious regimes. It is a secular answer to a common problem.
One has to ask oneself what an alternative would look like, how it would be enacted, and whether it would stand up to scrutiny.
While ‘TownHeretic’ is being obtuse, he’s circling around asking how it could be done differently, in view of the fact that we do not live in a Theocracy.
Easy, Tiger
Might I suggest you’re just playing here. Clearly you get it, and he/she does not. Bit rude, I might suggest for you to just keep toying with an already slain prey (whether the prey knows it or not). There’s something, at least (and if only by virtue of events), which separates us from the beasts.
The Rule Of Law.
Oh, how glorious and imperfect it is.
It’s complex, it has a philosophical root which rips religion a brand new hole to inexpertly fill; that of evidence.
But you presumably know this. Yet avoid it in order to have some fun. Either educate the guy or don’t. Toying is undignified.
@ Serpentdove
The complicated bit about any and all of this, and the bit ‘TownHeretic’ is avoiding in berating you is that the system that exists is one that is post religion.
Most legal systems, and all those in the Western world (which includes SA) are built upon the post-christian model of The Enlightenment. Namely that of evidence and the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty (usually as stated by a jury of one’s peers, though that is not the case in this SA trial). The principle is sound, but the results can vary due to the subjective nature of the system. Modern civilisation has judged this system as more productive than the previous, arbitrary, systems applied by religious regimes. It is a secular answer to a common problem.
One has to ask oneself what an alternative would look like, how it would be enacted, and whether it would stand up to scrutiny.
While ‘TownHeretic’ is being obtuse, he’s circling around asking how it could be done differently, in view of the fact that we do not live in a Theocracy.
:yawn: Ad hominem Eph 4:14[:yawn: Discuss issues not people (Eph 4:14).
:yawn: Ad hominem Eph 4:14
Related:
:yawn: TH Deceiver/Gossip, Small Observations Thread
:yawn: TH Misquotes Me
I'm arguing against hypocrisy. You're being a hypocrite by constantly leaning on the "ad hominem" parry while consistently insulting people.
That would only be a personal attack if you agree that's what you're doing. . . so, you did it again.
I actually went to that link. There's nothing deceptive in it...and your "small" observations is a funny way of illustrating your own, SD.
No, I didn't. And you link doesn't begin to make that case...but it does underscore something else about you. :e4e:
:yawn: Ad hominem Eph 4:14
:yawn: Ad hominem Eph 4:14[Link to misquote
I didn't just name you. I set out why and examples. That's a different thing. You know that. It's why you truncated my quote.
I hope one day you spend a portion of the energy you use on attacking people and then hiding behind that on understanding them and engaging in substantive, real difference. I attempted to speak to the points. I can't have a conversation with you if you aren't going to do more.
Why use 25 words when you could use 294? :idunno:
Last edited:
Supreme Court seeks compromise in 'contraceptive mandate' cases Ex 20:15, Pr 8:36
Los Angeles father charged with murdering son for being gay Lev 20:13 :vomit: