mejohnsn

6 ms·

1.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
The problem with this proposal is that it ignores the fundamental problem behind any flamebait: that flamebait qua flamebait is not _intended_ as serious discussion, nor as a prelude to serious discussion. The proven technique for dealing w
2.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
Sed quare? Latina autem lengua tenet haec difficultates.
3.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
Interesting guess, but no. The preposition 'ad' in "ad hominem" carries an _adversarial_ connotation. In this sense, it is like "adversus".
4.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
As I read this, I now feel an even stronger need to take exception to DH4. Graham has used the same 'DH4' to classify both the legitimate counterargument, and the fallacy, so well described by another commentator as "two ships passing each
5.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
The Nizkor list _is_ pretty good, but some of their definitions, and even examples used to discuss them, are not very convincing. Please see the separate reply where I gave three other lists of definitions. Actually, one of my long time fav
6.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
You ask, "why would you put extra layers on it, which will have to be unwrapped to get to the inner logic?". There are two possible reasons: 1) you know your audience is not that logical to begin with, and need to be lured by illogical appe
7.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
Ah, another example of how A"ad hominem" is misused;) Please see my other reply listing three different sites using three different definitions of "ad hominem". None of those definitions support your example. Rather, saying it is so because
8.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
Yet Whitehead says that even Aristotle's writings are mere "footnotes to Plato". So perhaps we should be spending more time with Plato's instead.
9.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
I'll assume "To Schopenhauer, real arguments are actually fallacies, because mere humans have other goals than the truth" is an accurate summary of Schopenhauer's viewpoint. In that case, I _still_ have to say this is just a more thanaverag
10.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
You could make that DH0.
11.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
I am glad that people are thinking of Aquainas in this connection. In fact, I _still_ think his book on logical fallacies is one of the best. For example, he is the _only_ one to get the defintion of "amphigology" right. Unfortunately, when
12.
by mejohnsn 18y ago
Speaking of disgreeing, I found a lot to disagree with in this article. But since I see many of my objections have already been stated by others adding comments, I will restrict myself to a few comments: 1) I have been surprised at what a _