What a bunch of ridiculous nonentities you are!  I'm deleting this site.  You all are DOGS.

>From: deleuze oedipus rimbaud <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Note on Ad Hominem arguments
>Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 23:38:19 -0500
>
>
>clearly Miss C. Cox has been trained inthe fine field of oratory and high rhetoric and sounds like she has done her homework. I agree with her and am persuaded more than ever that it is, indeed, the womyn in this list thats gots the brains , with the exception of Sara
> Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>wrote:Consider:
>
>1.
>
>X argues for A.
>A is vile.
>Therefore X is vile.
>
>
>2.
>
>X argues for A.
>X is vile.
>Therefore A is vile.
>
>One may use a term in any way minimally consistent with its history, and
>for that reason _either_ of the arguments above may be labelled _ad
>hominem_. I myself, however, would use the label only for Example 2. The
>first one contains a personal attack, but it also, and primarily,
>depends on establishing a point about the argument involved. Hence it
>can be answered by A without him/her having first to give a self
>defense.
>
>The second one, however, attempts to discredit the argument without in
>fact confronting it, by discrediting the person who makes the argument.
>That is my personal usage of _ad hominen_. Most red-baiting (or any kind
>of baiting) is an instance of (2).
>
>When Frank Knox (a Republican but in Roosevelt's cabinet) ordered his
>paper, the old Chicago Daily News, to oppose whatever the Tribune
>supported, Colonel McCormick ordered his editors to launch a campaign
>against syphilis. (This is obliquely relevant to the question of ad
>hominem arguments, though it does not directly involve one.)
>
>Note that a common argument in u.s. politics is related to the ad
>hominem argument, though it does not involve persons. "X is bad because
>it is unconsitutional." This says nothing about the merits of X but
>merely tries to rule it out of consideration. That is also what an ad
>hominem argument tries to do.
>
>Band wagons also involve a suppressed ad hominem argument. The
>implication of a "band wagon" is that anyone who does not accept a
>certain premise is too (stupid/evil/unfashionable) to be worth arguing
>against. Stephen J. Gould, in _The Structure of Evolutionary Theory_,
>gives a good account of "band wagon" effects in science in certain
>periods.
>
>Carrol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*.