wenglund Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Why are you spouting such preposterous nonsense?Because it so aptly fits his screen name ("Analytics")? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
TAO Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 4 Pages. I have yet to see an example of ad hominem attack from MI.I have seen posts where people are nit picking over significant or insignificant. But I have seen no posts that show such ad hominem. Note: I am not even denying it exists. But if you make the accusation, you should be able to support it with at least a few quotes. Incidentally, I use this dictionary definition for ad hominem: 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.Notice that in either case the argument is one of avoiding the pertinent issue by use of misdirection.I would like to see ONE instance of this from MI. Just one.Treehugger pointed out one earlier, from one of Will's posts. It stated:As Scott averred above, I also am not aware of any significant use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in either FAIR or MI publications. It is a myth, propounded by those whose primary objective is to silence the voice of those attempting to defend the restored gospel against the attacks of its detractors.The colored part is an ad-hominem argument, as it is trying to imply that ad-hominem in apologetics is a myth because critics support it. However, it is not a fallacious ad-hominem, meaning, it is fine to use that ad-hominem in argument. This is because critics generally have a negative view of apologetics; thus, it is possible to question their motives in bringing an issue like ad-hominem's up.Also, as I mentioned earlier, critics bring up ad-homniems in arguments is an ad-hominem in and of itself.
CASteinman Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Treehugger pointed out one earlier, from one of Will's posts. Maybe you missed it. I was looking for quotes from MI that met the dictionary definitions of ad hominem. Not posts on this board that (by virtue of not addressing any specific issue) do not meet that definition.
Stargazer Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 I once tried to start an blogversation with an acquaintance of mine, on the subject of some statements by a conservative commentator. He, a liberal, started out in his blog response, titling it: "Really? This guy is an idiot!" and then proceeded to restate what the conservative had said, in terms that didn't carry the same meaning of what the conservative had actually said. Once he had re-stated the commentator's statements in these new terms, he proceeded to demolish his own re-statements, and then declared victory.. In other words, he started out with an ad-hominem ("idiot") and followed it up by straw man arguments.Referring to an argument as "dishonest" is not an ad-hominem. Calling the person who makes an argument "dishonest" IS an ad-hominem. In further explication, if someone were to start out with a false statement, and use it as a basis for an argument, it would be perfectly legitimate -- and NOT an ad-hominem -- to call the argument dishonest. But if, at the same time, I were to refer to the stater of the dishonest argument as a liar and a poltroon, then THAT would be an ad-hominem.Get it?
Calm Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 But if, at the same time, I were to refer to the stater of the dishonest argument as a liar and a poltroon, then THAT would be an ad-hominem.But if it was true, would it be a logical fallacy?
TAO Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Maybe you missed it. I was looking for quotes from MI that met the dictionary definitions of ad hominem. Not posts on this board that (by virtue of not addressing any specific issue) do not meet that definition.Ah, yes, directly from the MI would be a totally different story. I haven't seen any ad-homnimens from them yet, so I wouldn't be able to tell ya =p.We shall await a critic to point a very very very obscure one out, I guess. Edited June 25, 2012 by TAO
rameumptom Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Because it so aptly fits his screen name ("Analytics")? Thanks, -Wade Englund-Now THAT is an example of ad hominem rhetoric....
phaedrus ut Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 There is a thing called MINO = Members in name only. Several of the authors had told me personally that they were atheists. This is not true for all of the authors, but many--enough. The claim that they were Mormons was a marketing pretense. It's like Dehlin. He's an atheist. His claim to be a Mormon in any meaningful sense of the word--other than MINO--is fundamentally dishonest. Isn't this obvious?And here we have an example of ad hominem with Bill choosing to define who is and isn't a Mormon using the No True Scotsman fallacy and implying they are dishonest. Phaedrus
wenglund Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Now THAT is an example of ad hominem rhetoric.... Clever facetiousness aside, I hate to correct such a well respected individual. However, I took great care to escape even the least pretense of that conclusion. Mine was a question, and not an argument, and was socratically in response to a question, and not an argument. So, it doesn't qualify as ad hominem even in the very loose sense that some may portend to use it here to their advantage. Even still, I hope it gave others as much of a chuckle as it did me ( I realize it is bad to laugh at one's own jokes, but I couldn't help myself).Thanks, -Wade Englund-
wenglund Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 And here we have an example of ad hominem with Bill choosing to define who is and isn't a Mormon using the No True Scotsman fallacy and implying they are dishonest.PhaedrusIt trust you were being facetious as well, otherwise your post betrayed a remarkable misunderstanding of logic and logical fallacies.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
phaedrus ut Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 It trust you were being facetious as well, otherwise your post betrayed a remarkable misunderstanding of logic and logical fallacies.Thanks, -Wade Englund-I understand the difference between facetious and fallacious. I suspect that maybe you do not.Phaedrus 1
Weston Krogstadt Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Not your place to steady the ark.Oh, come ooonnnnnn......The most effective generals we have sit in the chuch office building, holding keys and priesthood.I'm afraid there's a little idolizing going on here. Rock-star status and all.I am surprised Daniel Peterson was let go. This only gives ammo to the church critics. It had nothing to do with poor scholarship, but that's what the critics will say. Daniel Peterson was a lightning rod for their anger. He drove the anti-mormons crazy. How is that a bad thing? I am worried that the church's new direction is to be more accommodating to the anti-mormon position. I feel like we are at war and the politicians have removed one of our most effective generals from the battle field. What are they thinking?I've been saying this for years now. I think we need to stomp the Antis into the ground. It's probably a good thing I will never be a GA.
Senator Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 I've been saying this for years now. I think we need to stomp the Antis into the ground. It's probably a good thing I will never be a GA.I don't know......as of now it sounds like you and Saul have alot in common.
Pahoran Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 And here we have an example of ad hominem with Bill choosing to define who is and isn't a Mormon using the No True Scotsman fallacy and implying they are dishonest.PhaedrusNo, it is not "ad hominem;" not the ad hominem fallacy, anyhow. Nor does it use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The notion that Latter-day Saints -- those who covenant at baptism to take upon them the name of Christ -- believe in God, is in no sense an ad hoc criterion. Perhaps the distinction between Mormons and atheists is a bit too subtle for you, but it isn't for the rest of us.If a Trotskyite signed up with the Republican party -- or if a laissez-faire libertarian joined the Weather Underground -- in order to criticise those organisations while claiming "insider" status -- might you then be able to grasp the concept that they might not be actual believers?Regards,Pahoran
wenglund Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 I understand the difference between facetious and fallacious. I suspect that maybe you do not. PhaedrusAs expected, your suspicions, like your evident grasp of logic and logical fallacies, is demonstrably wrong. Oh well...don't give up your day job.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
phaedrus ut Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 No, it is not "ad hominem;" not the ad hominem fallacy, anyhow. Nor does it use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The notion that Latter-day Saints -- those who covenant at baptism to take upon them the name of Christ -- believe in God, is in no sense an ad hoc criterion. Perhaps the distinction between Mormons and atheists is a bit too subtle for you, but it isn't for the rest of us.If a Trotskyite signed up with the Republican party -- or if a laissez-faire libertarian joined the Weather Underground -- in order to criticise those organisations while claiming "insider" status -- might you then be able to grasp the concept that they might not be actual believers?Regards,PahoranSo it's ok for you to say who can identify as a Mormon and who cannot but it's unfair for someone outside the church to say that they think Mormons aren't Christians?If the church is consistently touting that we have 14 million members at present. They are counting people like Dehlin and myself in those numbers they are obviously giving false information. You should write the church headquarters and give them Pahoran's updated criteria on who is and isn't a Mormon. I'm sure they would be happy with the update. Phaedrus
Pahoran Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 So it's ok for you to say who can identify as a Mormon and who cannot but it's unfair for someone outside the church to say that they think Mormons aren't Christians?As you know, Christians are those who believe in and follow Christ. Anyone who invents ad hoc criteria to exclude some group of Christians is doing what you wrongly accused Bill of doing.Latter-day Saints are Christians (see definition above) who are also members of the Church. If someone is a Christian but not a member of the Church, then they're not a Latter-day Saint. In much the same way, if someone is a member of the Church but not actually a Christian (such as an atheist, just for example) then Bill's MINO classification appears to work; rather well, actually.If the church is consistently touting that we have 14 million members at present. They are counting people like Dehlin and myself in those numbers they are obviously giving false information. You should write the church headquarters and give them Pahoran's updated criteria on who is and isn't a Mormon. I'm sure they would be happy with the update.PhaedrusAh. Sarcasm. How enlightening.I happen to know that the people at Church HQ are well aware of the issues I'm describing here. Now if you can come up with some useful, straightforward way to count people on the basis of their interior beliefs, I'd be delighted to hear it.When the Church mentions the total membership, they are not "obviously giving false information," although that is, of course, the standard apostate/anti-Mormon claim. (That's one of the ways we know it to be false.) You and Mister Dehlin are members of the Church, and the Church is fully entitled to count you as such. That your beliefs and/or actions do not conform to what the Church teaches is a separate issue.Regards,Pahoran 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 As you know, Christians are those who believe in and follow Christ. Anyone who invents ad hoc criteria to exclude some group of Christians is doing what you wrongly accused Bill of doing.Latter-day Saints are Christians (see definition above) who are also members of the Church. If someone is a Christian but not a member of the Church, then they're not a Latter-day Saint. In much the same way, if someone is a member of the Church but not actually a Christian (such as an atheist, just for example) then Bill's MINO classification appears to work; rather well, actually.Ah. Sarcasm. How enlightening.I happen to know that the people at Church HQ are well aware of the issues I'm describing here. Now if you can come up with some useful, straightforward way to count people on the basis of their interior beliefs, I'd be delighted to hear it.When the Church mentions the total membership, they are not "obviously giving false information," although that is, of course, the standard apostate/anti-Mormon claim. (That's one of the ways we know it to be false.) You and Mister Dehlin are members of the Church, and the Church is fully entitled to count you as such. That your beliefs and/or actions do not conform to what the Church teaches is a separate issue.Regards,PahoranWell there you go. (Yes I am the peanut gallery for today).
phaedrus ut Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) As you know, Christians are those who believe in and follow Christ. Anyone who invents ad hoc criteria to exclude some group of Christians is doing what you wrongly accused Bill of doing.Latter-day Saints are Christians (see definition above) who are also members of the Church. If someone is a Christian but not a member of the Church, then they're not a Latter-day Saint. In much the same way, if someone is a member of the Church but not actually a Christian (such as an atheist, just for example) then Bill's MINO classification appears to work; rather well, actually.Regards,PahoranSee that's the problem. You offer your own definition of who is a Christian and subsequent proof that LDS are Christian. The problem is that is only your definition of what a Christian is, it is not the universal definition. Many of the various Christian faiths recognize that while they are different they are all members of the larger "body of Christ" collectively and universally. For example they recognize a common baptism so a Lutheran becoming a Anglican need not be rebaptized. Mormonism's exclusion from this common Christian community is one of the reasons why people say "Mormons aren't Christians" not because they don't believe Mormons don't follow Jesus it's because they believe Mormons exclude themselves from the community of other Christians.By the same term you're welcome to say you believe Mormons are Christian or who you believe should be considered a valid Mormon. That's just your opinion.Phaedrus Edited June 26, 2012 by phaedrus ut
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 In light of this Christian idea, I was just reading an atheist today (GASP!) who noted that there is no such thing as Christianity..... only Christianities. It has been plural from the very start.....something the Gnostic scholar Elaine Pagels noted years ago as well in her interview with Bill Moyers when he was such hot stuff. So with the immense variety of Christianities out there, no single one has the exclusive patent on assigning who gets the label and who doesn't.
CASteinman Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 It has been plural from the very start.The only way that could be true is if Jesus did not teach the One (True) Way and was confused about things and taught plural Christianities, as He was -- The Start.
CASteinman Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Ah, yes, directly from the MI would be a totally different story. I haven't seen any ad-homnimens from them yet, so I wouldn't be able to tell ya =p.We shall await a critic to point a very very very obscure one out, I guess.I have still not seen any of these legendary ad hominems. And I am not even a skeptic that they exist -- I am just not aware of any.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 The only way that could be true is if Jesus did not teach the One (True) Way and was confused about things and taught plural Christianities, as He was -- The Start.Yes that is the impression the Bible wants to give us now isn't it........
phaedrus ut Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 In light of this Christian idea, I was just reading an atheist today (GASP!) who noted that there is no such thing as Christianity..... only Christianities. It has been plural from the very start.....something the Gnostic scholar Elaine Pagels noted years ago as well in her interview with Bill Moyers when he was such hot stuff. So with the immense variety of Christianities out there, no single one has the exclusive patent on assigning who gets the label and who doesn't.Very true. Christian was a term outsiders used to describe the followers of Jesus. For example, after the death of Judas the remaining 11 Apostles appointed Matthais to replace Judas. These followers lead by James(Brother of Jesus) and Simon Peter referred to themselves was as Nazarenes and also began using the term "the way" to describe themselves. Phaedrus
CASteinman Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Yes that is the impression the Bible wants to give us now isn't it........No... This has nothing to do with the Bible -- which does not give any firm indication either way as far as I can tell. It is just a simple logical fact. The only way your belief can be true is if Jesus Christ was confused.
Recommended Posts