[EM] Paul: Logical arguments
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Fri May 13 22:29:12 PDT 2005
When I see a posting with an ad
hominem, I know that the author has nothing to contribute to my knowledge
other than that he or she does not know how to present a logical argument.
If you're saying that I don't know how to present a logical argument, then
I invite you to show that none of my arguments are logical. You can start
now, disproving each one of them, or at least a few of them, enough to make
I think the term "ad hominem" overly flatters at least one of the people
I've criticized. But, aside from that, are you really claiming that if
someone criticizes someone, then nothing that that criticizer has ever said
is logically argued? That itself sounds a bit illogical, you must agree.
As I point out to James, when I've criticized someone it's about their
consistent, blatant, habitual departures from logical argument. And it has
to be extreme and go on for quite a while before I criticize. Each criticism
has followed an argument or statement of mine about voting systems. When
I've criticized someone, it's always been about a statement that they'd just
made about voting systems. So even my criticisms are on-topic. That can't be
said for a few others whose criticisms have nothing to do with EM's topic.
Sure, some people criticize as a substitute for legitimate argument. I've
often pointed that out when it happened. Are you actually saying that I do
that? I've never criticized someone in order to evade the subject, but there
are some here who, when they have no better argument, will resort to
questing the motives of the person with whom they disagree, or otherwise
changing the subject to the character of that person. People like Craig
Carey and Russ, for instance, have done that on a regular basis. I never
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
More information about the Election-Methods