Re: [-empyre-] a note on protocol on -empyre-

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

Dear Christina,
Dear all, 

It appears immediately that the times to worry each others from our cultural
tradition or singularity becomes in double mass, on all the lists..

I think that such things are coming from the perpetual misunderstanding on
the question of overpass universalism but which follows to reign under the
illusion of a universal through united language, nowadays, for example which
would be Anglophone; from this real situation of dominion, all the others
misunderstanding of forgotten relativity are following as a power whatever
the good faith of each one.

May be?

>From a relative point of view, lot sorts of thought can be expressed without
double mass: don't you think so?

Best
A.


On 30/10/06 5:50, "Christina McPhee" <christina112@earthlink.net> probably
wrote:

> dear -empyreans-
> 
> 
> 
> -empyre- will follow the guideline posted on our index page,
> 
>> The facilitators reserve the right to not publish posts that...
>> disrespect the featured guests, or monopolize the forum either via
>> individuals or group, and may unsubscribe anyone consistently doing
>> so.
> 
> 
> Interpreting 'disrespect',  the moderators  will  tend to  disallow
> posts that rely on  ad  hominem argument as a primary rhetorical
> technique.
> 
> thanks everyone for observing the formal character of  this soft-
> skinned space.  All of us maintain this integrity so that multiple
> points of view can be developed without personal attack.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
>>> What is 'ad hominem argument'?
>>> 
>>> n ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin,
>>> literally "argument against the person") or attacking the
>>> messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by
>>> attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather
>>> than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a
>>> logical fallacy (see Validity below).
>>> 
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>> 
>>> 
>>> " Ad hominem as logical fallacy
>>> 
>>> A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
>>> 
>>> A makes claim X.
>>> There is something objectionable about A.
>>> Therefore claim X is false.
>>> The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot
>>> point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an
>>> 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There
>>> are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.
>>> 
>>> Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies
>>> usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking
>>> textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having
>>> committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also
>>> Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful
>>> and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness.
>>> 
>>> In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the
>>> positive aspects of the person arguing the case is sometimes known
>>> as "positive ad hominem," or appeal to authority.
>>> 
>>> An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's
>>> argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely
>>> because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the
>>> person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the
>>> soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the
>>> person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks
>>> authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of
>>> otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad
>>> hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the
>>> characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument,
>>> and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In
>>> the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally,
>>> to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to
>>> describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning
>>> of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric
>>> textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that
>>> this use is incorrect.
>>> 
>>> Examples:
>>> 
>>> "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted
>>> since you are a criminal, as well."
>>> "You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree, because
>>> you are uneducated and poor."
>>> "Only right-wing nutjobs believe that homosexuals account for one
>>> to two percent of the population."
>>> 
>>> Not all ad hominem attacks are insulting:
>>> 
>>> Example:
>>> 
>>> "Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this is false,
>>> because Paula is too important to pay attention to the game."
>>> This is an ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something
>>> positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and
>>> not the topic in dispute.
>>> 
>>> Ironically, accusing an opponent of ad hominem can itself be an
>>> example of ad hominem if it is worded as an insult: "I'm not going
>>> to stand here and let him insult me!" or "My opponent is resorting
>>> to logical fallacy to win," or "Since he is out of good arguments,
>>> he's attacking me." (partial Argument from silence)"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --- wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>