Question to Moderators

[ornamentalmind]

Copied from "Gun Rights Post"

ornamentalmind
From: ornamentalmind
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Jul 3 2008 4:50 pm
Subject: Re: Gun Rights Post

Question to the moderators:

Do you agree with Craig's analysis of what ad hominem argument means?

I do not. I do agree that chaz is a very distasteful poster and don't
like many of his posts...nor have I for many years in other venues.

Yet, his specific post about America and its culture I do not find
meets the definition of 'ad hominem argument'.

And, no I am not an expert. And, no, I don't expect to 'win' any such
argument with the mods of this group. And, I do hope to hear from the
other mods on this specific topic.

It is my strong view that not only is there a misunderstanding here
but that IF one accepts that chaz's post was ad hom., then many many
many other posts would/should have met that same criteria. . . none of
which were given a warning.

I will await a response to this until I post again.


On Jul 3, 2:40 pm, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> OM,
> Not only will I defend to the death everyone's right to express their
> views, I hope to encourage it for the sake of everyone, and for the
> sake of this group. What I will not defend and encourage is ad
> homimen arguments and vulgarity. It is a cheap and ridiculous way of
> trying to persuade others to accept your view based on pure emotional
> responses. As is outlined in the group's mission statement, this is a
> group to rationally discuss different views and ideas. Ad hominem
> arguments are not tolerated. Chaz has been resorting to vulgarity and
> ad hominem arguments 90% of the time. That is why I told him to
> police himself.

> On Jul 3, 12:27 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> > Craig, I hope your post about ad hominem was not a real warning about
> > chaz's post! As much as chaz has been 'quite vulgar' and at least
> > philippic in chat over the years, I will defend to the death his right
> > to post his view about a country.


> > I was sure your ad hom. rule only had to do with list members.


> > For full disclosure, I agree with his post about much of the North
> > American 'machizmo' and such agreement is based on over 3 score years
> > living in the US and directly experiencing it.


> > I guess you (Craig) didn't enjoy the movie "Bowling for Columbine"
> > either. No, please, no diatribe now! :-)


> > On Jul 3, 7:36 am, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > > > The problem with America is their culture of glorifying criminality
> > > > and violence. Guns are a male fetish made glamorous by Bonny and
> > > > Clyde, Rick Derrringer, Butch Cassidy, Wild Bill Hickock, Dirty Harry,
> > > > Tony Soprano, - ad infinitem..
> > > > Its all just glam, there is no logic or social rational. Its all just
> > > > so butch/gay. Guns compensate for small minds and small dicks.


> > > Pure ad hominem, and quite vulgar. Please police yourself.- Hide quoted text -


> - Show quoted text -

[Kierkecraig]

OM,
Here is the sentence that concerned me the most.

> Its all just
> so butch/gay. Guns compensate for small minds and small dicks.

I do not see how you cannot see that as ad hominem. It is also
vulgar. Now you are correct, Chaz is not the only person who does
this. Many (all?) of the participants argue this way once in a
while. It is purely fallacious, but we all secretly hope
(unconsciously perhaps) that it will create an emotional response that
will turn the argument in our favor. I only occasionally call people
out on it. I called Chaz out on it because he is constantly being
vulgar, and arguing unfairly.

To answer your question directly, saying that guns compensate for
"small minds and small dicks" is to say that everyone in the forum
arguing for gun ownership have small minds and small dicks. What am I
missing in labeling that as ad hominem?

[ornamentalmind]

You are 'missing' that chaz said that guns compensate for small minds
and small dicks. This is his view. In fact, when it comes to
compensation for small dicks, I would guess that numerous 'scholarly'
papers can be found on this very topic. So, it clearly is a view and
althougy you, Craig, may have associated chaz's post with those on
this list who are appologists for guns, chaz made no such direct ad
hom. argument, nor do I see it (the argument that list appologists for
guns compensate for....) implied in the post. This is what you are
missing.

I awaid the other moderator's views.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Kierkecraig]

OM,
Your defense of Chaz's post could be used anytime an ad hominem
argument is used. "your an idiot, therefore you are wrong!" is as
clear cut of an ad hominem as you can get. Well studies have shown
that people with low IQ's are more often than not wrong. So it's not
really an ad hominem argument at all. Anytime someone says "guns
compensate for small minds and small dicks" in a forum where there are
people arguing in defense of guns, it is intended to disparage those
who are arguing the point. Such arguments are invalid, nothing follow
from them, and should not be used. Your argument is the back door for
a whole slew of personal attacks. That is against the purpose and
tone of this group. Unfortunately, with the increased traffic we are
getting, much of our conversations are ending in flame wars. I hope
it stops soon because if not it will become just another worthless
forum.

[ornamentalmind]

I disagree with your entire analysis of ad hominem. I agree with the
flame wars, therefore, I will no longer post.

[Kierkecraig]

OM,
I don't know what you mean by no longer posting. If you mean ever
again, I think that's unnecessary.

[Pottsie]

While I tend to agree with you re. the ad hominem issue.....on the vulgarity issue Craig is right on.  Though there may be a number of scholarly papers on the issue of "guns compensating for small minds and small dicks", I doubt that they used that language.

 

That sort of language is used by people who want to prove that they are not subject to authority or the prevailing social culture.  "See????  I don't have to be polite.  I'm above that sort of thing".  That's what "vulgar" means.

 

Vulgar:

1.	characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.

2.	indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.

3.	crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.

4.	of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses.

5.	current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.

6.	spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue.

Namaste

 

Pottsie

 

 

 

 

ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You are 'missing' that chaz said that guns compensate for small minds
and small dicks. This is his view. In fact, when it comes to
compensation for small dicks, I would guess that numerous 'scholarly'
papers can be found on this very topic. So, it clearly is a view and
althougy you, Craig, may have associated chaz's post with those on
this list who are appologists for guns, chaz made no such direct ad
hom. argument, nor do I see it (the argument that list appologists for
guns compensate for....) implied in the post. This is what you are
missing.

I awaid the other moderator's views.

On Jul 3, 5:21 pm, Kierkecraig wrote:
> OM,
> Here is the sentence that concerned me the most.
>
> > Its all just
> > so butch/gay. Guns compensate for small minds and small dicks.
>
> I do not see how you cannot see that as ad hominem.  It is also
> vulgar.  Now you are correct, Chaz is not the only person who does
> this.  Many (all?) of the participants argue this way once in a
> while.  It is purely fallacious, but we all secretly hope
> (unconsciously perhaps) that it will create an emotional response that
> will turn the argument in our favor.  I only occasionally call people
> out on it.  I called Chaz out on it because he is constantly being
> vulgar, and arguing unfairly.
>
> To answer your question directly, saying that guns compensate for
> "small minds and small dicks" is to say that everyone in the forum
> arguing for gun ownership have small minds and small dicks.  What am I
> missing in labeling that as ad hominem?
>

> On Jul 3, 5:54 pm, ornamentalmind wrote:
>
>
>
> > Copied from "Gun Rights Post"
>
> > ornamentalmind
> > From: ornamentalmind
> > Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
> > Local: Thurs, Jul 3 2008 4:50 pm
> > Subject: Re: Gun Rights Post
>
> > Question to the moderators:
>
> > Do you agree with Craig's analysis of what ad hominem argument means?
>
> > I do not. I do agree that chaz is a very distasteful poster and don't
> > like many of his posts...nor have I for many years in other venues.
>
> > Yet, his specific post about America and its culture I do not find
> > meets the definition of 'ad hominem argument'.
>
> > And, no I am not an expert. And, no, I don't expect to 'win' any such
> > argument with the mods of this group. And, I do hope to hear from the
> > other mods on this specific topic.
>
> > It is my strong view that not only is there a misunderstanding here
> > but that IF one accepts that chaz's post was ad hom., then many many
> > many other posts would/should have met that same criteria. . . none of
> > which were given a warning.
>
> > I will await a response to this until I post again.
>

> > On Jul 3, 2:40 pm, Kierkecraig wrote:
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > OM,
> > > Not only will I defend to the death everyone's right to express their
> > > views, I hope to encourage it for the sake of everyone, and for the
> > > sake of this group.  What I will not defend and encourage is ad
> > > homimen arguments and vulgarity.  It is a cheap and ridiculous way of
> > > trying to persuade others to accept your view based on pure emotional
> > > responses.  As is outlined in the group's mission statement, this is a
> > > group to rationally discuss different views and ideas.  Ad hominem
> > > arguments are not tolerated.  Chaz has been resorting to vulgarity and
> > > ad hominem arguments 90% of the time.  That is why I told him to
> > > police himself.

> > > On Jul 3, 12:27 pm, ornamentalmind wrote:
> > > > Craig, I hope your post about ad hominem was not a real warning about
> > > > chaz's post! As much as chaz has been 'quite vulgar' and at least
> > > > philippic in chat over the years, I will defend to the death his right
> > > > to post his view about a country.
> > > > I was sure your ad hom. rule only had to do with list members.
> > > > For full disclosure, I agree with his post about much of the North
> > > > American 'machizmo' and such agreement is based on over 3 score years
> > > > living in the US and directly experiencing it.
> > > > I guess you (Craig) didn't enjoy the movie "Bowling for Columbine"
> > > > either. No, please, no diatribe now! :-)

[Ian Pollard]

Aside from that post, I thought Chaz had been making some very good contributions of late.

Whether it is ad hominem... I think there's reasonable claim either way. The main reason why I think it may not be ad hominem, or is very weak ad hominem, is because it is so general. Rather than a direct personal attack against a specific opponent in a debate (to undermine or defeat specific points), its effect is totally limited by its lack of focus. Being generally rude or obnoxious doesn't necessarily fall into the category of an ad hominem, is what I am saying.

We all have different takes on what is to be considered "vulgar", so that's a harder call. For me that is maybe too strong of a word, but, whatever the case, it could have -- and should have -- been expressed much better. Particularly because there is an interesting argument behind it. Not actually about penis size, but the deeper connotations of the energies that guns, fast cars, etc, stimulate in the id.

Ian

[chazwin]

On Jul 4, 1:21 am, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OM,
> Here is the sentence that concerned me the most.
>
> > Its all just
> > so butch/gay. Guns compensate for small minds and small dicks.

Its only an ad hominem attack if you personally identify with the
statement.
"Ow my foot!", says Kierkecraig
I was not even replying to you but making a general point about gun
culture.

[chazwin]

On Jul 4, 1:57 am, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OM,
> Your defense of Chaz's post could be used anytime an ad hominem
> argument is used. "your an idiot, therefore you are wrong!" is as
> clear cut of an ad hominem as you can get. Well studies have shown
> that people with low IQ's are more often than not wrong. So it's not
> really an ad hominem argument at all. Anytime someone says "guns
> compensate for small minds and small dicks" in a forum where there are
> people arguing in defense of guns, it is intended to disparage those
> who are arguing the point.

TO say that guns compensate for small dicks is not to say that all who
own a gun are doing it for that reason. Maybe I unintentionally hit a
raw nerve in your case?
But there are very good reasons from psychology why this statement is
accurate.

[Vamadevananda]

" people who want to prove that they are not subject to authority or
the prevailing social culture."

Pottsie, whilst I'd prefer forum members ( including myself ) kept
their expressions simple and civil, let us continue to look for what
they have to say than how. Of course, there are limits which become
self - evident, even to the transgressors themselves.

I remember having had to raise the red flag myself, on rare
occassions, and upon myself too, but we are not here to subject
ourselves to any authority, nor to conform to specific social
cultures. We are only here to express ourselves, in a civil manner.

So far, the moderators have done a great job, without seeming to
regulate or intervene while discussions are on the flow, what with
people using all manner of expletives and f - words.

And, if you may take my word, please believe me : Chaz is one of the
better mind and soul ( sorry, Chaz, I must use the term ! ) we have on
this forum.

Thank you.

On Jul 4, 10:42 am, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> While I tend to agree with you re. the ad hominem issue.....on the vulgarity issue Craig is right on.  Though there may be a number of scholarly papers on the issue of "guns compensating for small minds and small dicks", I doubt that they used that language.
>
>   That sort of language is used by people who want to prove that they are not subject to authority or the prevailing social culture.  "See????  I don't have to be polite.  I'm above that sort of thing".  That's what "vulgar" means.
>
>   Vulgar:
>           1.  characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
>           2.  indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
>           3.  crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.
>           4.  of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses.
>           5.  current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
>           6.    spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue.
>
>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie
>

> "Properly speaking, of course, there is no such thing as a return to nature, because there is no such thing as a departure from it. The phrase reminds one of the slightly intoxicated gentleman who gets up in his own dining room and declares firmly that he must be getting home."  - G.K. Chesterton- Hide quoted text -

[gabbydott]

Take it sportsmanlike, Craig, owner and founder of this blue-eyed
group. ;-)

You reap what you sow, or so they say. No ashes without flames. No
rise for clever dicks without their fall. That's what the buiness of
argumentation is all about. Chazwin took the liberty to argue from the
POV of the gun. Brains may be used for things like that, too. What is
your argument against this approach? All I hear is: buh-buh, you
shouldn't do this, or I'll stop loving you. Do something about it, it
sounds terrible.

[archytas]

I have posted before on the potential that not all ad hominem argument
is necessarily wrong. This comes from rather dull stuff in philosophy
- in an attempt to put forward what argument should be and how we
mostly get it wrong. There is a fair discussion of ad hominem in
Standford EP on line.
There's a general point about listening to others in social science -
one wants to listen to undirected statements in order not to influence
what can be said to the 'expert' assumptions. I trawl pubs and
situations in which 'fuck, shit bastard' is so prevalent it is clearly
part of the culture I need to know. Some of this 'muck' is so crude
and disgusting even I won't repeat it here and it's not the crude
nature of the words or the subjects ('fisting' etc.) that is of
interest - it's the difference between frames of language and
context. Much one needs to hear and needs to be said is, of course,
censored and we need to understand these mechanisms. I go with Gabby
on this one.

[Slip Disc]

Wouldn't the specific opponent be the group of gun owners? I'm not
seeing the generality. It is clearly a direct link and firmly stated,
inference being "guns are compensation" for ______(any number of
things) in this instance small minds and small dicks. The focus may
be implied because the issue includes a specific group/class of
individuals; gun owners. (the specific opponent). Though the post
does not address any named individual we can easily follow the flight
of the arrow, aimed directly at any individual in the group that is a
gun owner, a personal attack on a specific group/class. Would
that not be ad hominem? Or is ad hominem so precise as to only apply
to a personal attack on a specific opponent?
Would chaz have had to rewrite several posts naming "each" individual
in order for it to be considered ad hominem?
I see the specific opponent being "gun owner".

[Slip Disc]

You'll be back!

[Slip Disc]

>Its only an ad hominem attack if you personally identify with the
statement.<

Is this basically a way to attack someone and avoid ad hominem? I
don't see it working that way as the general statement implies that
individuals within the group of which you are referring to identify
with the statement. Therefore technically it is ad hominem.

If I make a derogatory statement about intellectuals I would assume
that some people within this group are intellectuals and so I'm
personally attacking them but not individually but in a generalized
statement. "Books compensate for the lack of common sense" What?

[Kierkecraig]

It appears that Pottsie and Slip Disc are the only ones who agree that
this is ad hominem. I thought this would be a case where there would
be more consensus. I think that chaz has only proven my point by
taking the next step and saying that since I reacted to his statement,
it must have "hit a nerve." However, since there is a lack of
consensus I will let it go.

[Slip Disc]

Don't retreat so soon. It's 4th of July weekend and people are too
busy today.
Give it more time to develop. I'm sure there will be other to post on
this issue.
Besides, it is important for future reference that this ad hominen
issue be better defined within the group forum.

[Ian Pollard]

2008/7/4 Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com>:

If I make a derogatory statement about intellectuals I would assume
that some people within this group are intellectuals and so I'm
personally attacking them but not individually but in a generalized
statement.

It's a pretty bloody innocuous ad hominem if the attack is general.

For example, in a discussion about God, I could say "religious belief is simply childish wish-thinking".

That might irk some of the faith sufferers here, but it's pretty ineffectual, and we see as part of the cut and thrust of most debates. You'd have to be in a very bad mood, or very insecure about your beliefs, if that rubbed you up the wrong way. Most people here would respond with a bit of smile, maybe give a little back, and the debate moves on to more interesting things.

However, if I said: "Based on statement X and Y, we can clearly see that your notions of God are simply childish wish-thinking"... well, that's cuts a little deeper. It's specific, it's personal, and people aren't likely to find it amusing.

Ian

[Lee]

What is more irksome is the phrase 'faith sufferer', I certianly don't
feel that I suffer.

[Ian Pollard]

2008/7/4 Kierkecraig <craiga...@gmail.com>:

It appears that Pottsie and Slip Disc are the only ones who agree that
this is ad hominem.  I thought this would be a case where there would
be more consensus.  I think that chaz has only proven my point by
taking the next step and saying that since I reacted to his statement,
it must have "hit a nerve."  However, since there is a lack of
consensus I will let it go.

Craig, I think we're onto something quite worthwhile here. Not in terms of setting precedents or making rules, rather looking at the nature of argumentum ad hominem.

I also think Chaz is just poking fun here, rather than trying to win this debate by defaming the motives of gun owners. That can sometimes be lost via the Internet.

Ian

[Kierkecraig]

Ian,
I've always found that your argument style to border on ad hominem
territory. We've had many arguments about it in the past. However,
Chaz came along and made your argument style look quite innocent in
comparison. To say that "religious belief is simply childish wish-
thinking" I think is not only ad hominem, it really doesn't do
anything to further productive and interesting discussion. It just
signals to the other side that you aren't really interested in what
they have to say and a flame war starts. Once flame wars start, then
no one can have a friendly and productive discussion.

[Vamadevananda]

Gabby, I find this kind of vitriol entirely uncalled for !

I'd rather have KC own this group, and the four individuals I know of
moderate it. It's a great Group, and I love it.

[Ian Pollard]

2008/7/4 Kierkecraig <craiga...@gmail.com>:

Ian,
I've always found that your argument style to border on ad hominem
territory.  We've had many arguments about it in the past.  

I agree, my style often borders that, but it is never my intention to be offensive or to derail an argument. I'll dip in with it (on occasion), but if there's no takers I'll back out and proceed with the argument at hand. It is a fact, however, that sometimes the psychology of belief and the pertinacious tug of an individual's apperception interests me more than the argument at hand.

 

However,
Chaz came along and made your argument style look quite innocent in
comparison.  To say that "religious belief is simply childish wish-
thinking" I think is not only ad hominem, it really doesn't do
anything to further productive and interesting discussion.

Agreed it is ad hominem, but I think we should recognise that such general statements are more likely to be humorous jibes than a targeted personal attack on an individual. The first statement is a little obnoxious, sure, the latter is just plain mean-spirited. I wonder if policing the former too strictly we run the risk of a serious sense of humour malfunction.

Ian

[chazwin]

On Jul 4, 3:34 pm, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/7/4 Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com>:

It would probably be set for you to try to decide what you are
thinking and leave my own motives to me.
I feel very strongly that a significant element in American gun
culture is the macho penis compensation factor. I was not talking to
KCraig when I wrote the posting in question. If he is insulted by it
then he should look to his own motivation in gun ownership. Most men I
know do not need to bolster their manhood by owning guns, some do. It
is an unfortunate fact supported by psychology that weapon ownership
can stimulate and, be stimulated by, this base phenomenon. It is a sad
indictment of human society that it is so, and his a major impediment
to the hopes of social and even to world peace.



>
> Ian

[chazwin]

On Jul 4, 2:58 pm, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Its only an ad hominem attack if you personally identify with the
>
> statement.<
>
> Is this basically a way to attack someone and avoid ad hominem? I
> don't see it working that way as the general statement implies that
> individuals within the group of which you are referring to identify
> with the statement. Therefore technically it is ad hominem.

You need to look up ad hominem. This is short for argumenum ad
hominem, and refers to an argument which seeks to counter an argument
because of the person making it.
Even if I were attacking A person directly - it would still not be an
adhominem, because what I said was an observation and was not in
response to argument, being not an argument of any sort but a simple
matter of fact.

So technically or otherwise it could not be an ad hominem.

[frantheman]

I agree with Ian, I think this discussion is both interesting and
important. While I personally don't like ad hominem approaches and try
to avoid them myself, at the same time, I'm also inclined to nod in
agreement when Neil says that not all ad hominem argument is
necessarily wrong.

The atmosphere in this group, while occasionally rarified and usually
serious is not, thankfully (!), one of pure intellects exchanging
rational arguments unter etherial conditions. We need to look at the
culture of argument we adhere to, the context within which it takes
place and, of course, the possibilities and the limits of the medium
we are using (we exchange in print, we're mostly not discussing real
time, we have the opportunity to check our comments before we hit the
"send" button, etc.). And sometimes, we just need to lighten up a bit!

Coming to the issue of context - I wonder how relevant the fact is
that Gordon was repeatedly warned and that Keith got a gentle slap on
the fingers (both of which events I personally found completely
appropriate) in the past few days? The result, however, could be that
there's a bit more sensitivity about style and validity in argument at
the moment.

Reading back over this, I realise it helps me to come to a basic
observation. The irritation I feel about most of Gordon's posts and
some of Keith's is that they are SIMPLY ad hominem, making some kind
of vapid, stupid or insulting comment and then leaving it at that.
Chaz, on the other hand, while frequently first delivering a couple of
hefty smacks on the face, then generally goes on to actually address
the arguments of the person who has annoyed him. That, in my opinion,
is what makes the legendary flame-wars between Pat and Chaz (for
example) generally worth reading - even if I sometimes ask myself when
the two are finally going to realise that they are NOT going to
convince each other 100 posts later! But both take their arguments and
those of their opponent seriously, even if they think he is completely
wrong-headed. In this sense, they are superior to most of the ego-
tripping which goes on in a lot of other groups.

There is also the issue of positive ad hominems - they happen
occasionally too, in the nature of; From your posts up to now, I have
learned to regard you as a fine and valuable person, therefore I will
accept what you say. Is there a major difference - in the sense of
argument structures - from; You are a prat and a fool and therefore I
intend to regard what you say as drivel?

And, of course, we all have our sacred cows, things about which we are
both serious and defensive and it is perfectly natural to be
particularly sensitive about these themes. I have a slight suspicion
that this may be relevant to Craig (and perhaps Chris) on the issue of
the (for me, personally, incomprehensible) right to own and possess
weapons. This sensitivity increases with the realisation that many
others, whose opinions and intellects one otherwise respects and
admires, are in vehement disagreement with one's own views.

I know that some may regard the above point as "psychologising", but
would contend that it is important to realise (and rejoice in) our
basic humanity, even when we fondly imagine we are only trading
arguments on the purely intellectual level.

Francis

On Jul 4, 4:34 pm, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/7/4 Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>

[gabbydott]

My dear Vamadevananda -

I know it's our cultural differences that cause these unwanted
vibrations. I'm sorry and I take full responsibility for what this may
cause in you, because I know your culture. Along the latitudinal lines
where I live one doesn't have to wait to be asked for something in
order to take part in an open discussion.

Speaking of kinds of vitriol, do you understand its alchemistic roots:
Visita Inferiora Terrae Rectifcando Invenies Occultum Lapidem

[gabbydott]

I forgot to mention: I am not here to watch the world being tinted in
pink, I am here to learn. As always.

[Lee]

Very well put indeed Francis.

> > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[Kierkecraig]

Again, I do not see how this is not pure ad hominem. No response can
be made to what Chaz has said. Any response will be buttressed with a
"he should look to his own motivation in gun ownership." Someone
could be insulted by what Chaz has said without having the motivation
Chaz has put forth. I think those who do own guns, and do not have
the motivations Chaz has mentioned, should be offended by such
dribble. Gun culture in America has had to deal with these
stereotypes by the anti-gunners for sometime, and it's just
ridiculous. I have already put forth many of the motivations for gun
ownership in America, none of which include compensation for something
missing in your manhood. Power to the people, self defense, sport,
etc., are all noble motivations for gun ownership. I have many
friends who are gun owners, and none of them suffer from what Chaz has
accused them of. Of course you will find such characters among gun
owners, just as you will find them among any group of people.

I understand what Neil is getting at with the benefits of ad hominem,
and in theory agree. However, in my experience with other forums, you
can go and get a degree in ad hominem arguments there. There are
plenty of places for personal attacks to be fleshed out in other
groups. That is all they get done there. That is exactly why I
started Minds Eye. Every time I would go to a group to have a
rational discussion, it always ended in personal attacks and flame
wars. I never found a forum where people could come and openly share
their views and have those views subjected to rational analysis,
rather than pure emotional degradation. So when I started Minds Eye,
one of the cardinal rules was no ad hominem attacks. Just like in a
Lockian Social Contract, when you come here, you give up something to
get something. You give up the freedom you had in the other forums to
personally attack, and use all the vulgarity you wanted, but in
exchange for that freedom given up, you get a group where you can have
a civil discussion, where your ideas will be subjected to pure
analytical analysis (or as close thereto as possible).

But I also understand that without a groups members there is no
group. It appears that most of you are okay with this sort of
rhetoric, and so I must concede to the consensus. This isn't just my
group, it is our group. I just hope it is not a slippery slope that
turns our forum into something undistinguishable from the other
forums.

[Vamadevananda]

May I add, Fran : I see the stated motto of Mids Eye as a least
common denominator. Rationl discussions and exchange of ideas is fine.
But we can easily go further and create a virtual community of
individuals who respect and love each other, and discussions shall
remain only a means to knowing each other more fully, more intimately
if I may so speak.

In which case, we will have to accept ( and love ) people with the
differences among themselves, even the behavioural spikes peculiar to
each one of us, more or less. I will perhaps not associate so closely
with some, but I'd still associate with them for what is good and
precious in them.

No, this was me ... not Gandhi, King or Christ.

> > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 4 Jul, 14:59, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It appears that Pottsie and Slip Disc are the only ones who agree that
> this is ad hominem.  I thought this would be a case where there would
> be more consensus.  I think that chaz has only proven my point by
> taking the next step and saying that since I reacted to his statement,
> it must have "hit a nerve."  However, since there is a lack of
> consensus I will let it go.
>

Personally, I sat on the fence on this. I can see it in both
lights.

[Pat]

On 4 Jul, 15:21, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/7/4 Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> > If I make a derogatory statement about intellectuals I would assume
> > that some people within this group are intellectuals and so I'm
> > personally attacking them but not individually but in a generalized
> > statement.
>
> It's a pretty bloody innocuous ad hominem if the attack is general.
>
> For example, in a discussion about God, I could say "religious belief is
> simply childish wish-thinking".
>
> That might irk some of the faith sufferers here, but it's pretty
> ineffectual, and we see as part of the cut and thrust of most debates.

LOL!! Equally, 'faith-sufferers' is borderline, in light of no
conclusive evidence for or against. We ALL suffer from faith.

>You'd
> have to be in a very bad mood, or very insecure about your beliefs, if that
> rubbed you up the wrong way. Most people here would respond with a bit of
> smile, maybe give a little back, and the debate moves on to more interesting
> things.
>
> However, if I said: "Based on statement X and Y, we can clearly see that
> your notions of God are simply childish wish-thinking"... well, that's cuts
> a little deeper. It's specific, it's personal, and people aren't likely to
> find it amusing.
>
> Ian

So, in light of no conclusive evidence AGAINST God, is atheism
pretend-adult wishful thinking? ;-)

[Slip Disc]

>>>Agreed it is ad hominem, but I think we should recognise that such general
statements are more likely to be humorous jibes than a targeted
personal
attack on an individual. The first statement is a little obnoxious,
sure,
the latter is just plain mean-spirited. I wonder if policing the
former too
strictly we run the risk of a serious sense of humour malfunction.<<<

A general statement being more likely a humorous jibe is subjective.
Statement content can inflict serious personal injury to someone who
might be very or overly sensitive in nature.
Chaz>>> "I feel very strongly that a significant element in American
gunculture is the macho penis compensation factor".
It may be a "significant element" but it certainly does not warrant
the statement..."Guns compensate for small minds and small dicks" or
similar "SUV's compensate weakness and impotence".
The statement is invalid whether it qualifies as ad hominem or not.
However, that is aside from the current issue.







Ian

On Jul 4, 10:04 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/7/4 Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com>:

[frantheman]

On Jul 4, 6:30 pm, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> But I also understand that without a groups members there is no
> group.  It appears that most of you are okay with this sort of
> rhetoric, and so I must concede to the consensus.  This isn't just my
> group, it is our group.  I just hope it is not a slippery slope that
> turns our forum into something undistinguishable from the other
> forums.
>

I share your hope, Craig, for there is something quite special about
this group - otherwise I have the feeling that most of us wouldn't be
here. At a very difficult time in my personal life, reading and
occasionally posting here is one of the positive things helping me
keep on a more or less even keel. Once more, thanks for getting it up
and running, and thanks, too, to the moderators.

In fact, thinking about it, more than any hard and fast rules, it's
the atmosphere here and the instinctive touch of the mods who keep it
what it is. I don't think there's much point in setting out complex
definitions of what sort of arguments should be allowed, and what not,
and how they should be interpreted and so on (even if that might
appeal to certain aspects of your lawyer nature :-)). There are enough
moderators, with very different views and backgrounds, but all with a
basic common sense and a sense for what the group can tolerate, and
what not. And enough ornery bastards among the members to shout foul,
if they think one of the mods is getting it wrong.

And, hell, one of the best recent posts (I thought) was pure ad
hominem. At a stage when Gordon was being particularly irritating,
someone (I'm nearly sure it was Chris, but it may have been Ian [both
moderators]) posted a link to a YouTube video of Jilted John. I don't
know if the subject himself even got the point, but as soon as I saw
the link I started chuckling, as I'm old enough to remember Jilted
John's 15 minutes back at the end of the 70s and his whining, "Gordon
is a moron, Gordon is a mo-o-ron..." It gave me a lift for the rest of
the day! Now, that response had style, intelligence, subtlety and
panasche - everything the target didn't have!

Francis

[Slip Disc]

>> It's a pretty bloody innocuous ad hominem if the attack is general. <<

Innocuous? I think the key word in your sentence is "attack".
Innocuous attack, is that like jumbo shrimp or any one of numerous
oxymora?

Either way you are confirming it to be ad hominem in your sentence
above!

[Ian Pollard]

2008/7/4 Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com>:

>> It's a pretty bloody innocuous ad hominem if the attack is general. <<

Innocuous?  I think the key word in your sentence is "attack".
Innocuous attack, is that like jumbo shrimp or any one of numerous
oxymora?

Slip, to state what I thought was obvious, juxtaposing "innocuous" with "attack" was deliberate and was intended convey my point. Specifically, the comparative impotence of generalised ad hominem as an "attack".

You're pissing into the wind, which is always messy.

Either way you are confirming it to be ad hominem in your sentence
above!

Er, yes....? My point was about generalised ad hominem vs. personalised ad hominem.

Ian

[Slip Disc]

In the sense of your definition I would think it would be 'argumentum
ad personam. However, because you generalized the attack without
naming an individual then so be it, argumentum ad hominem.
Now you "might" be "claiming" that what you said was an observation
instead of responsive to argument as a way of steering the consensus
away from ad hominem.
The context of your statement does not indicate the basis of it being
either responsive or observational. How can we confirm your statement
was based on observation. Aside from that how do you observe that
guns compensate for small minds and small dicks. Have you interviewed
several gun owners and conducted a psychological evaluation and
measured their male member? I can guarantee you that if you perform
that evaluation on me your views would make an immediate turnaround.
LOL (just a note on the lighter side) I agree with frantheman that
"sometimes we just need to lighten up a bit" (2nd paragraph 10:55am)

[Molly Brogan]

I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I find the flaming offensive,
and steer clear of discussions that become arguments because of it. I
have seen some very bright people come and go in this group because of
it. If I recall, doctor did not like a remark about qualifying parents
who have had previous experience with abortion...haven't seen him
since.

[ornamentalmind]

Craig, since you seem to be moving towards a more egalitarian point of
view, I will return to posting, albeit quite cautiously.

I have a couple of what to me are very important points about this
topic.

I'll start out with one that is not as obvious as others. When you
(Craig) said "... I think those who do own guns, and do not have the

motivations Chaz has mentioned, should be offended by such dribble."

Is this ad hominem? You do not in this sentence direct your argument
to Chaz's argument but to the character of his words. (dribble) Yes,
you, like chaz does, continue to more directly address points.
Add to this small example your appeal to morality when you say others
"should be offended...", you are not addressing the topic but
reinforcing your own point of view and attempting to impose it upon
the 'morals' of others.
The FACT is that an ad hominem argument has NOTHING to do with whether
you are offended by it...nothing. Ad hominem, which I will let others
look for the details in the countless resources online, is an
argument AGAINST THE MAN. The meaning is found in the term itself.
Just because someone FEELS offended it in NO way implies an ad
hominem. Look at your own 'rule'"
(from Mind's Eye)
1. Be civil; what would commonly be called an "ad hominem" attack is
unacceptable. Challenge the idea, not the person.

Now, here is an apparent conflation of 'be civil' which of course is
quite subjective and open to all sorts of interpretations. Over the
numerous years of the internet, this has been interpreted by
moderators based on their own views and quite divergently. You can
call anything not civil. However, note what continue to say.
"Challenge the idea, not the person." This is the function of using an
ad hominem rule. I support such a rule.

Your nexe 'rule' is:
2. Avoid simple "you are wrong" statements; if you have a point to
make,
back it up. Simple, really.

Yes, this is quite simple. I wish to address this later. I'll continue
with your rules.

3. Avoid swearing. Sometimes it happens in the flow of a sentence --
and I'm
guilty of it -- but there are many far more creative ways to express
yourself.
4. Do not preach or proselytize; we are here to discuss ideas, not be
recruited to your particular religion no matter how great you think it
is or
how much peril you believe our eternal souls to be in.
5. Attacks upon immutable human characteristics (race, disability,
sexual
orientation, et al) are totally unacceptable.

Other than that, happy posting!
xxxianxx

Now about enforcement of the rules:
What do you think about Chris's rather shocking post to me recently?

"Well, Orn, to which I reply a hearty Eff You Too!...I thought you
were interested in the topic, didn't realize it was Arsehole
Thursday...Nuh-uh. You don't know what you're talking about. I didn't
see that at all. Your perspective has no value, and your opinion has
even less. Not only will I not engage in a productive conversation
from you, I'll take a scorched earth approach so as to guarantee that
even if by random chance, you have managed to gather three molucules
of valuable truth in your perspective, they will not impact me, and
potentially mitigate to any minute degree my stance on the complete
and utter lack of value in your viewpoint."

While much of the above can be seen as mocking irony, I was shocked
that Chris couldn't see my specific and clearly presented points. Also
you, Craig, said nothing about his tone, nor, what clearly in your
current 'definition' of it can be seen as ad hominem comments. I
wonder why this is? I DO know what it appears to be Craig and iIt does
not lend much credence to the veracity of such moderation.

In fact, while, yes, overall you keep big time flamers off of this
list, when the swearing, lack of civility and over all attacking
started long ago, by not quickly and directly addressing it, my faith
in the even handed and consistent moderation here is greatly shaken.

Since the internet is a wild west in general, until this event
happened, I said little about it other than my personal distates of
much of chaz's style (words, not arguments) and some of the vapid and/
or preaching that arises now and then.

Now for a short appeal to my own authority. I was involved in instant
messaging last century. I have beein a member of and moderator of
numerous email groups. Currently moderator of about 12 and member of
about 39 or so.
Also, I am a member of a very large online, members only, and somewhat
moderated conference system. There are over 200 active topics going
now. I am a moderater of this. Most of the above is heads and sholders
'higher' in the sense of not only better moderated but more 'civil'
and to the point posts than this group. So, in my eyes, a standard has
existed for well over a decade that should be/can be aspired to.

As an aside, I'm not sure if it was in an old A vs C yahoo chat room
or in the long defunct Fire Talk where I first 'met' chaz. He has
always been a distasteful poster. This is clear. Has been clear for a
long time. Your current 'attack' on his posts, which in my eyes was
based not only on your own misunderstandings and immaturity but on
your own prejudices, was clearly arbitrary and inappropriately
handled.

I'll give the group a little chance to settle into this discussion and
see if I wish to continue. I haven't been keeping up with the other
threads because I thought that to be consistant with my own sense of
virtue I would have to abandon the group. Either way, I wish you all
the best.
OM

[chazwin]

It was me! I don't think Gordon was offended - though I might be
wrong.
I'm willing to bet that knowing that the evil Chazwin posted the U-
tube video will give you pause in your laughter and change your mind -
such is the rationality of the censorious.

> moderators]) posted a link to a YouTube video of Jilted John. I don't
> know if the subject himself even got the point, but as soon as I saw
> the link I started chuckling, as I'm old enough to remember Jilted
> John's 15 minutes back at the end of the 70s and his whining, "Gordon
> is a moron, Gordon is a mo-o-ron..." It gave me a lift for the rest of
> the day! Now, that response had style, intelligence, subtlety and
> panasche - everything the target didn't have!

I'm glad to have given you a giggle. I like to address important
issues with a touch of brevity sometimes, though Kcraig's continual
attack is beginning to piss me off I have to say. Where does righteous
affront stop and ad hominem begin. The real reason KCraig is annoyed
is because, in taking umbridge, he identified with the macho "big gun
small dick" stereotype and managed to perform metaphorically that
occupational hazard of the gun lobby - shooting themselves in the
foot. If he was big enough he would have disassociated himself with
that section of the gun owners but he should also admit that such a
stereotype is true and valid for some gun owners - I know I have met
some of them and they are f*cking scary people, as it is with them
that intentional gun crime is committed.




>
> Francis

[chazwin]

On Jul 4, 10:37 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Craig, since you seem to be moving towards a more egalitarian point of
> view, I will return to posting, albeit quite cautiously.
>
> I have a couple of what to me are very important points about this
> topic.
>
> I'll start out with one that is not as obvious as others. When you
> (Craig) said "... I think those who do own guns, and do not have the
> motivations Chaz has mentioned, should be offended by such dribble."
> Is this ad hominem? You do not in this sentence direct your argument
> to Chaz's argument but to the character of his words. (dribble)

I'm glad someone has noticed. This is to suggest that the words I
speak are drool from my mouth. That is an ad hominem plain and simple.

It is clear from this exchange that Chris let himself down
enourmously, by failing to address any issue at all - except to
display his own arrogance. My view is that if you play with the
bigkids you can get hurt. I have to put up with this BS all the time
for thinking a little differently, thinking in ways others have
hitherto not.

Also
> you, Craig, said nothing about his tone, nor, what clearly in your
> current 'definition' of it can be seen as ad hominem comments. I
> wonder why this is? I DO know what it appears to be Craig and iIt does
> not lend much credence to the veracity of such moderation.
>
> In fact, while, yes, overall you keep big time flamers off of this
> list, when the swearing, lack of civility and over all attacking
> started long ago, by not quickly and directly addressing it, my faith
> in the even handed and consistent moderation here is greatly shaken.
>
> Since the internet is a wild west in general, until this event
> happened, I said little about it other than my personal distates of
> much of chaz's style (words, not arguments) and some of the vapid and/
> or preaching that arises now and then.
>
> Now for a short appeal to my own authority. I was involved in instant
> messaging last century. I have beein a member of and moderator of
> numerous email groups. Currently moderator of about 12 and member of
> about 39 or so.
> Also, I am a member of a very large online, members only, and somewhat
> moderated conference system. There are over 200 active topics going
> now. I am a moderater of this. Most of the above is heads and sholders
> 'higher' in the sense of not only better moderated but more 'civil'
> and to the point posts than this group. So, in my eyes, a standard has
> existed for well over a decade that should be/can be aspired to.
>
> As an aside, I'm not sure if it was in an old A vs C yahoo chat room

Let me assure you I have never engaged in the hopeless bedlam and
gibberish that reigns in "chatrooms". I tried it once for about 2 mins
- yuk!

> or in the long defunct Fire Talk where I first 'met' chaz. He has
> always been a distasteful poster.

I invite you to qualify that with some subjective reflection. You
might find me distasteful, but on can't hope to avoid offending
someone occasionally.

> ...
>
> read more »

[chazwin]

Well spoken!

[ornamentalmind]

OM> always been a distasteful poster.

chaz > I invite you to qualify that with some subjective reflection.

You
might find me distasteful, but on can't hope to avoid offending
someone occasionally.

OM - chaz, IF it wasn't you in the chatrooms, then I appologize. I
have found your rather philippic style here and in at least one other
group to be offputting to say the least. And, as I've said, I'll
defent to the death.... Overall, IF I feel greatly offended by your
words, I do reflect a bit and, if all else fails, just refuse to
engague. A defense mechanism for sure, but one I select. And, of
course, your justification "..can't hope to avoid offending..." to me
misses the point. Your style, until recently on a couple of posts, has
been entirely unnecessairly agressive, quite like that of a flame
warior and inviting strife. I don't like the style at all and see much
of it to be worthy of moderation based on some of this group's
criteria...in the specific instance, not ad hominem.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Slip Disc]

I knew that you would come back. You are too egoistic to stay away not
to mention that you always need to have the last word.
I let you have it in another thread and will not respond further.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Slip Disc]

Very clever Molly!
You are close but the fat lady did not sing!

On Jul 4, 4:06 pm, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:

[Slip Disc]

[Slip Disc]

Really Ian!
To state what you "Thought" was obvious...............we should all
default to your thoughts.
Juxtaposing harmless with violence to convey your point.
Ya! OK!
Now can you clarify comparative impotence of generalized ad hominem?
Or is it comparative chardonnay versus merlot?
You are out on a limb that is longer than the length of a 200 year old
oak tree.

Tomorrow is another day my esteemed friend.

Van says and I agree.........."In which case, we will have to accept

( and love ) people with the
differences among themselves, even the behavioural spikes peculiar to
each one of us, more or less. I will perhaps not associate so closely
with some, but I'd still associate with them for what is good and
precious in them."

On Jul 4, 2:32 pm, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Vamadevananda]

" Aside from that how do you observe that guns compensate for small
minds and small dicks."

Just as is well known, in consumer behaviour studies, that big cars
give people a high they were lacking in their life untill then !

And, Slip, you appear as one catankerous soul on this issue,
forcefully trying for your 15 seconds fame, as it were, when things
are really quite fine otherwise.

As Ian says : You are pissing into the wind. You're persistence in
this matter is misplaced.

> > statement.  "Books compensate for the lack of common sense"  What?- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

KC, may I suggest, let's continue to have a " government " that is
least visible, and governs the least ! You anyway have forum
citizens, by and large, that you could be proud of.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Ian Pollard]

2008/7/5 Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com>:

Really Ian!
To state what you "Thought" was obvious...............we should all
default to your thoughts.
Juxtaposing harmless with violence to convey your point.
Ya! OK!
Now can you clarify comparative impotence of generalized ad hominem?
Or is it comparative chardonnay versus merlot?
You are out on a limb that is longer than the length of a 200 year old
oak tree.

If you don't get a reply, bait me again?

Slip, I answered your first post which was attempting, and failing, to pick apart my sentence apart. I did not answer your second, which went further to prove that you did not actually have a point. You, now on your third response, still do not have a point.

Regarding the comparison between gernalised and direct ad hominem, read back over this thread.

Thanks,

Ian

[chazwin]

On Jul 5, 1:29 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OM> always been a distasteful poster.
>
> chaz > I invite you to qualify that with some subjective reflection.
> You
> might find me distasteful, but on can't hope to avoid offending
> someone occasionally.
>
> OM - chaz, IF it wasn't you in the chatrooms, then I appologize. I
> have found your rather philippic style here and in at least one other
> group to be offputting to say the least. And, as I've said, I'll
> defent to the death.... Overall, IF I feel greatly offended by your
> words, I do reflect a bit and, if all else fails, just refuse to
> engague. A defense mechanism for sure, but one I select. And, of
> course, your justification "..can't hope to avoid offending..." to me
> misses the point. Your style, until recently on a couple of posts, has
> been entirely unnecessairly agressive, quite like that of a flame
> warior and inviting strife. I don't like the style at all and see much
> of it to be worthy of moderation based on some of this group's
> criteria...in the specific instance, not ad hominem.

Words that are written with passion that fly against your own beliefs
can appear "aggressive". These fora are adversarial and like a
courtroom do tend to pit differing views against each other. It is
easy to mistake passion with aggression when you are being disagreed
with. I know because I too have found your postings and many others
equally aggressive. Just remember we do not know each other , except
by our written word, and that means NONE of what we say is really
personal - even if it is replete with insults.
There was a "contributor" on alt.philosophy until recently (he seems
to have given up or given himself a stress related disease) his most
common phrase was "you knuckle-dragging commie cunt" which he used in
just about every post to people he did not agree with. This turned out
to be everyone on alt.philosophy. He also had pet insulting names for
his key protagonists. At first I took this all to be highly insulting
and used to get quite worked up about it, until I realised that it was
just his way of venting frustration that he was at odds with the rest
of the world. Conclusion: he was only hurting himself.

> ...
>
> read more »

[chazwin]

Now this is the sort of content-less attack that the rules of the game
are meant to advice against.
It has nothing to recommend it for debate being, pure and simple, a
pathetic dig from someone who seems lost for words.

> ...
>
> read more »

[chazwin]

Slip Disc is Kierkcraig.

[ornamentalmind]

Nice post chaz.
I've found that IF I post to you in a civil way you usually will
return the 'favor'. This has been much more successful and satisfying
for me recently than merely reacting to your style.

[chazwin]

On Jul 4, 9:05 pm, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the sense of your definition I would think it would be 'argumentum
> ad personam. However, because you generalized the attack without
> naming an individual then so be it, argumentum ad hominem.

Hominem means man. I did not attack a man, but a culture. Thus ad
hominem is not appropriate.
Your argument is no more effective as Slip Disc, than it is as
Kiercraig.

> Now you "might" be "claiming" that what you said was an observation
> instead of responsive to argument as a way of steering the consensus
> away from ad hominem.
> The context of your statement does not indicate the basis of it being
> either responsive or observational. How can we confirm your statement
> was based on observation. Aside from that how do you observe that
> guns compensate for small minds and small dicks. Have you interviewed
> several gun owners and conducted a psychological evaluation and
> measured their male member?

No but it is a common observation in psychology that men compensate
for inadequacy by buying butch cars, guns and other male accoutrement.
You really must learn to understand the meaning of metaphor "dick"
does not mean penis in this case but is a metaphor for maleness.
Having a small dick is a metaphor for feelings of inadequacy.

I can guarantee you that if you perform
> that evaluation on me your views would make an immediate turnaround.

Yuk! Well I hope never to find out, Craig. But another thing the
psychologists say it that boast of a big prick is a sure sign of
having a small one. (this is a joke).

[ornamentalmind]

Slip Disc is Kierkcraig?????

> > > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

That's all good

> ...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

On 5 Jul, 10:17, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Slip Disc is Kierkcraig?????
>

No, they are NOT the same person. The writing styles are vastly
different. And, their IP addresses originate from areas that are over
1000 miles apart. It was a ruse and I'm sure Chaz is laughing at
anyone who thought, for a moment, that he was serious.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Ad hominem ad nauseum! Ian Pollard has a history as a Moron (ad
hominem enough?). Of course this was a typo. I meant Ian Polard has
a history as a Mormon - yet is this worse ad hom? Lee once misled me
into thinking Chaz was female. A 48 year old woman who likes Bill
Bailey is right up my league - I almost bought the train tickets! I
would regard students who only get as far with ad homnauseum as a
dictionary definition as intellectually challenged. Is this ad
homnauseum against those who have only strived so far in here? I'm
sad enough to like you guys! Pat's last comment could be ad
homnauseum against Craig's fiendishly cunning Internet-ghosting
abilities. I'm sure Chaz will confirm Greco-Roman pornography made
fun of big rather than little dicks. This could be adhomnaseum (Chaz
has dyslexic problems) if I refer to him here as a pornographer rather
than historian. It could be (I refer to Norbert Elias here) that
politesse and etiquette are central in producing a mannered society
and we have the wrong manners. Crude ribbing is central in some
tribal exchanges, as is ridicule of leadership. It is quite a
compliment in some societies to be declared as the 'worst bad
bastard'. Our politesse might well be collectively ad hominem against
them.
In using etiquette and politesse we may well be consigning much that
is important from debate and confusing ourselves as to what
rationality actually may be, and we are always in danger of believing
we are more rational than we are, and forgetting rationalities may be
much less rational than we suppose (Foucault).

[Slip Disc]

lol I'm not KC. It was experimental on my part. I was curious of the
responses.
Thank you all for involuntarily participating.
Now continue your ad hominem discussion.
Please {;-)

[Pat]

And remember, Focault's pendulum swung both ways. Could THAT be
an ad hominem against him? ;-)

[Pat]

On 5 Jul, 12:02, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lol  I'm not KC.  It was experimental on my part. I was curious of the
> responses.
> Thank you all for involuntarily participating.
> Now continue your ad hominem discussion.
> Please {;-)
>

I didn't even SEE your experiment. Where was it?

[Slip Disc]

Temperament........ I wanted to learn more of members temperaments.
Tolerance........The level of tolerance within the group.
Moderation......Orn, in the original post mentions and questions the
warnings of moderators. I spewed out, as chaz noted a "content-less
attack" (my apologies to Orn.). Does it warrant a warning?
I found it all very interesting and learned from it.
Slip

[Pat]

On 5 Jul, 12:42, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Temperament........ I wanted to learn more of members temperaments.
> Tolerance........The level of tolerance within the group.
> Moderation......Orn, in the original post mentions and questions the
> warnings of moderators. I spewed out, as chaz noted a "content-less
> attack" (my apologies to Orn.). Does it warrant a warning?
> I found it all very interesting and learned from it.
> Slip
>

Ahhh, I thought you'd actually changed your nickname or
something like that in order to impersonate Craig, thus Chaz' equating
the two of you.

[Slip Disc]

I don't know how he perceived that duality but I think you are wrong
about it being a ruse.
How and why would you think that I would change my name to impersonate
Craig when you yourself pointed out the IP address distance factor. I
would never under any circumstances impersonate another member.
Secondly I would give Craig more credibility than that and perceive
his level of integrity to transcend that form of trickery. Craig can
hold his own.

[frantheman]

On Jul 5, 1:23 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> It was me! I don't think Gordon was offended  - though I might be
> wrong.
> I'm willing to bet that knowing that the evil Chazwin posted the U-
> tube video will give you pause in your laughter and change your mind -
> such is the rationality of the censorious.
>
The fact that it was you, Chaz, who posted the Jilted John link,
doesn't decrease my admiration for the riposte one bit. A pity some of
your others don't reach this standard!

Francis

[chazwin]

Boom Boom!

Actually Foucault was proud to be gay.

I can confirm the mirth of the Grecian big dicks. When it was typical
to exercise naked (gymnos (gymnasium) = naked), having to tie it all
up with a piece of catgut to stop it flopping about was cause for much
ribbing and snorting. Compact and bijoux was the thing to have. Large
members were associated with the denizens of the wilderness like the
priapus, uncouth and wild.

[chazwin]

On Jul 5, 11:15 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Jul, 10:17, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Slip Disc is Kierkcraig?????
>
> No, they are NOT the same person. The writing styles are vastly
> different. And, their IP addresses originate from areas that are over
> 1000 miles apart. It was a ruse and I'm sure Chaz is laughing at
> anyone who thought, for a moment, that he was serious.

Teehee!!!

[chazwin]

On Jul 5, 2:04 pm, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know how he perceived that duality but I think you are wrong
> about it being a ruse.
> How and why would you think that I would change my name to impersonate
> Craig when you yourself pointed out the IP address distance factor. I
> would never under any circumstances impersonate another member.
> Secondly I would give Craig more credibility than that and perceive
> his level of integrity to transcend that form of trickery. Craig can
> hold his own.

"Hold his own" - ooohhh errr!!!! "Get it?" "hold his own!!
Teeeheeee!!!

[Slip Disc]

I meant that metaphorically Chaz! LOL

[Pat]

On 5 Jul, 14:04, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know how he perceived that duality but I think you are wrong
> about it being a ruse.
> How and why would you think that I would change my name to impersonate
> Craig when you yourself pointed out the IP address distance factor. I
> would never under any circumstances impersonate another member.
> Secondly I would give Craig more credibility than that and perceive
> his level of integrity to transcend that form of trickery. Craig can
> hold his own.
>

Perhaps it's another, 'new' form of ad hominem. Attack via
assumed duplication. If anyone is clever enough to develop a new form
of smoke-and-mirror ad hominem, it's Chaz. And I don't necessarily
mean that as an attack on the man himself. Just bowing to the clever
tactics. Kind of a way of hitting below the belt by straping a new
belt onto someone a little bit lower than it should be and then
striking above IT. As for the double-entendre, it appears Chaz can
hold his own and two of anyone else's. But one wonders where they are
all held. ;-)

[Chris Jenkins]

I have to agree. I do see the ad hominem in it, and Chaz most definitely enjoys sticking a fork in folks from time to time. It's just part of her nature. Ian gets close, and so do I. I think we definitely flirt around the edges of personal attacks from time to time, especially in scenarios where the differences in belief set are drastic.

 

I appreciate Ian's style of posting. I think I have a somewhat similar approach to the line to ad hominem. I think Chaz consistently dances across the edge, but rarely with both feet (and has been put back on moderation when that occurred).

 

A certain amount of rhetoric and pedagogy come with the territory. We're usually pretty good about just calling it out when it happens, I think.

 

As a final note, Chaz's perspective regarding the phallic connection to guns isn't baseless, but it is simplistic. Freud tied everything to his penis, figuratively speaking, but that was a guy who had serious mother issues, so perhaps not all of his observations are entirely on point.

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 4 Jul, 14:59, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It appears that Pottsie and Slip Disc are the only ones who agree that
> this is ad hominem.  I thought this would be a case where there would
> be more consensus.  I think that chaz has only proven my point by
> taking the next step and saying that since I reacted to his statement,
> it must have "hit a nerve."  However, since there is a lack of
> consensus I will let it go.
>

    Personally, I sat on the fence on this.  I can see it in both
lights.

> On Jul 4, 7:26 am, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wouldn't the specific opponent be the group of gun owners?  I'm not
> > seeing the generality. It is clearly a direct link and firmly stated,
> > inference being "guns are compensation" for ______(any number of
> > things) in this instance small minds and small dicks.  The focus may
> > be implied because the issue includes a specific group/class of
> > individuals; gun owners. (the specific opponent).  Though the post
> > does not address any named individual we can easily follow the flight
> > of the arrow, aimed directly at any individual in the group that is a
> > gun owner, a personal attack on a specific group/class.      Would
> > that not be ad hominem?  Or is ad hominem so precise as to only apply
> > to a personal attack on a specific opponent?
> > Would chaz have had to rewrite several posts naming "each" individual
> > in order for it to be considered ad hominem?
> > I see the specific opponent being "gun owner".
>
> > On Jul 4, 2:25 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Aside from that post, I thought Chaz had been making some very good
> > > contributions of late.
>
> > > Whether it is ad hominem... I think there's reasonable claim either way. The
> > > main reason why I think it may not be ad hominem, or is very weak ad
> > > hominem, is because it is so general. Rather than a direct personal attack
> > > against a specific opponent in a debate (to undermine or defeat specific
> > > points), its effect is totally limited by its lack of focus. Being generally
> > > rude or obnoxious doesn't necessarily fall into the category of an ad
> > > hominem, is what I am saying.
>
> > > We all have different takes on what is to be considered "vulgar", so that's
> > > a harder call. For me that is maybe too strong of a word, but, whatever the
> > > case, it could have -- and should have -- been expressed much better.
> > > Particularly because there is an interesting argument behind it. Not
> > > actually about penis size, but the deeper connotations of the energies that
> > > guns, fast cars, etc, stimulate in the id.
>

[ornamentalmind]

"It was a ruse and I'm sure Chaz is laughing at anyone who thought,

for a moment, that he was serious." - Pat

Color me laughable and naive! :-)

[archytas]

When it comes to pricks, I always liked the penis envy joke. Young
girl goes crying to Mommy after playing show and dare with the boy
next door. She is in tears because she has no penis. Never mind hon,
the mother says pulling up her skirt and pointing to the entry to the
unexplored continent, with one of these you can get as many pricks as
you'll ever need. Freud dispatched in a moment.

[chazwin]

On Jul 5, 8:13 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to agree. I do see the ad hominem in it, and Chaz most definitely
> enjoys sticking a fork in folks from time to time. It's just part of her
> nature.

I can understand a person mistaking the gender of Pat. But as I spell
my name with that big butch "Z" I can't imagine why anyone would think
me so feminine! Maybe they like to be dominated by strict bitch like
me!! Ooh the sauce!!!

Ian gets close, and so do I. I think we definitely flirt around the
> edges of personal attacks from time to time, especially in scenarios where
> the differences in belief set are drastic.
>
> I appreciate Ian's style of posting. I think I have a somewhat similar
> approach to the line to ad hominem. I think Chaz consistently dances across
> the edge, but rarely with both feet (and has been put back on moderation
> when that occurred).

It's a waltz actually. I love those butch "z"s and employ them
whenever possible.

>
> A certain amount of rhetoric and pedagogy come with the territory. We're
> usually pretty good about just calling it out when it happens, I think.
>
> As a final note, Chaz's perspective regarding the phallic connection to guns
> isn't baseless, but it is simplistic. Freud tied everything to his penis,
> figuratively speaking, but that was a guy who had serious mother issues, so
> perhaps not all of his observations are entirely on point.
>

[Pat]

On 6 Jul, 01:38, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:13 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to agree. I do see the ad hominem in it, and Chaz most definitely
> > enjoys sticking a fork in folks from time to time. It's just part of her
> > nature.
>
> I can understand a person mistaking the gender of Pat.

Except for the obvious 'Patrick' in my email address and my not-so-
rare comments about my ex-wife. But thanks, Charlene (Charlotte?),
for pointing that out. ;-)

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Urrgh! Things are getting almost cosy again.

[chazwin]

On Jul 6, 2:23 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 Jul, 01:38, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 8:13 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have to agree. I do see the ad hominem in it, and Chaz most definitely
> > > enjoys sticking a fork in folks from time to time. It's just part of her
> > > nature.
>
> > I can understand a person mistaking the gender of Pat.
>
> Except for the obvious 'Patrick' in my email address and my not-so-
> rare comments about my ex-wife. But thanks, Charlene (Charlotte?),
> for pointing that out. ;-)

Actually its Charleton - but don't let anyone else know!

[archytas]

Now that would equate to famous last words Chaz. "My secret will be
safe with the INternet community"!

[Pat]

On 6 Jul, 10:39, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2:23 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6 Jul, 01:38, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 8:13 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have to agree. I do see the ad hominem in it, and Chaz most definitely
> > > > enjoys sticking a fork in folks from time to time. It's just part of her
> > > > nature.
>
> > > I can understand a person mistaking the gender of Pat.
>
> >     Except for the obvious 'Patrick' in my email address and my not-so-
> > rare comments about my ex-wife.  But thanks, Charlene (Charlotte?),
> > for pointing that out.  ;-)
>
> Actually its Charleton - but don't let anyone else know!
>

Dangerously close, then, to the man who was famous for leading
the group known for their phrase "out of my cold, dead hand."

[Pat]

On 6 Jul, 09:11, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Urrgh!  Things are getting almost cosy again.
>

So, people don't like it when Chaz and I flare into flame wars
but they like it LESS when we engage in friendly banter? Did we rock
someone's foundations? Surely, that can only be good?

[Slip Disc]

>>I have to agree. I do see the ad hominem in it<<

Thanks Chris, not lets, how many does that make it?

On Jul 5, 2:13 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to agree. I do see the ad hominem in it, and Chaz most definitely
> enjoys sticking a fork in folks from time to time. It's just part of her
> nature. Ian gets close, and so do I. I think we definitely flirt around the
> edges of personal attacks from time to time, especially in scenarios where
> the differences in belief set are drastic.
>
> I appreciate Ian's style of posting. I think I have a somewhat similar
> approach to the line to ad hominem. I think Chaz consistently dances across
> the edge, but rarely with both feet (and has been put back on moderation
> when that occurred).
>
> A certain amount of rhetoric and pedagogy come with the territory. We're
> usually pretty good about just calling it out when it happens, I think.
>
> As a final note, Chaz's perspective regarding the phallic connection to guns
> isn't baseless, but it is simplistic. Freud tied everything to his penis,
> figuratively speaking, but that was a guy who had serious mother issues, so
> perhaps not all of his observations are entirely on point.
>

[chazwin]

DDDDooooohhhhh!!!!