On Mon, 18 May 1998 21:11:51 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>>GM>There are lots of skeletal differences. Some dinosaurs may have had
>>>>feathers.
>>SJ>Then why would they not be called birds?
>>GM>Sigh. This is why I am giving up on you Stephen.
>SJ>I regard this as an ad hominem. When you get stuck for an answer you
>>often assume a lofty tone prefaced by "Sigh", and blame the questioner.
GM>Steve, This is not even close to the definition of an ad hominem. An ad
>hominem is like saying, 'Evolutionists can't be true because everyone knows
>that evolutionists are liars.'
An "ad hominem" literally means "to the man":
"ad hominem..., to the man; personal. An argument ad
hominem a. appeals to a person's prejudices or special interests
instead of to his intellect, or b. relies on personal attack."
(Delbridge A., et al., eds., "The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary,"
1991, p11)
"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive). This is argument by
character assassination. "Reject whatever he says because he is a
bad person." Literally, the fallacy's name means "argument
against the man." It is not an attack on the proposition, but
against the person." (Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us Reason,"
1990, pp93-94)
Rather than answer the question, you implied there was something wrong
with me. Therefor it was an "Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive)", albeit not a
very bad one.
GM>It is a sense of frustration, sincere frustration that you apparently have
>not studied the nature of biological classification at all.
This is another ad hominem. You are accusing me of having "not studied the
nature of biological classification at all" (which is untrue), because you cannot
explain what you mean about why "dinosaurs" which "had feathers" would
"not be called birds".
Here is the FAQ addition:
=========================================================================
B
BLAMING OTHERS FOR HIS FAILURES
Blaming others for his failure to explain what he means:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 21:11:51 -0500
To: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>,
"evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
Subject: Re: Glenn's ad hominems FAQ (was half-evolved feather pt 2)
[...]
GM>It is a sense of frustration, sincere frustration that you apparently have
>not studied the nature of biological classification at all.
This is another ad hominem. You are accusing me of having "not studied the
nature of biological classification at all" (which is untrue) because you cannot
explain what you mean about why "dinosaurs" which "had feathers" would
"not be called birds".
=========================================================================
GM>A dinosaur is a dinosaur because of certain skeletal traits, which do not
involve feathers. These traits are different from those defining birds. Dinosaurs
are defined partly by having certain traits in their pelvi. (see Carroll, Vertebrate
Paleontology, 1988, p. 289 figure 14:3). There are other skeletal traits which
define the two different orders of dinosaurs.
That "A dinosaur is a dinosaur because of certain skeletal traits, which do not
involve feathers" and that these "traits are different from those defining birds"
refutes your own statement above that "some dinosaurs may have had
feathers."
>SJ>so from now on I will add them to a new thread called "Glenn's ad hominems
>>FAQ", classified in alphabetical order. Here is the first:
>>
>>=========================================================================
>>L
>>
>>LOFTY TONE
>>
>>Usually prefaced by "Sigh" as of great man tired of answering silly
>questions
>>from inferior beings.
>>
>>Translation: Glenn can't answer the question, so he pretends it is the
>>questioner's fault for asking it.
GM>Stephen, there are times when a person tires of trying to answer 18 kb
>responses that engage mostly discussions of how people have mistreated you,
>misrepresented your position or are ignoring what you say.
I regard this as an ad hominem too, because it implies (falsely) that I am a weak
individual who is mostly complaining about how people have mistreated,
misrepresented or ignored me.
Such is not the case. I am not complaining about how I have been treated by
Glenn (I have never asked him for an apology, for example). If I do point
out that Glenn (or anyone else) has mistreated me, it is as a debating point
(ie. to show their argument must be weak), not to obtain sympathy or an
apology. I have stated it before and for newcomers I will state it again-I ask no
quarter.
I do point out that Glenn often just ignores what I say, not because I feel hurt
but because it is relevant debating point when Glenn is faced with a difficullt
argument, he often just ignores it. It is noteworthy that Glenn realises that he
often just ignores what I say.
Here is the FAQ addition:
=========================================================================
W
WEAK
IMPLYING THAT OPPONENT IS A WEAK INDIVIDUAL
Implying (falsely) that his opponent is a weak individual who is mostly complaining
about how people have mistreated, misrepresented or ignored him:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 21:11:51 -0500
To: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>,
"evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
Subject: Re: Glenn's ad hominems FAQ (was half-evolved feather pt 2)
[...]
GM>Stephen, there are times when a person tires of trying to answer 18 kb
>responses that engage mostly discussions of how people have mistreated you,
>misrepresented your position or are ignoring what you say.
I regard this as an ad hominem too, because it implies (falsely) that I am a weak
individual who is mostly complaining about how people have mistreated,
misrepresented or ignored me.
Such is not the case....
=====================================================================
GM>Don't you occasionally long to discuss the scientific issues rather than way people
>fail your expectations?
You don't "fail" *my* "expectations". You "fail" *your* "expectations". You actually
*confirm* my "expectations" about evolution' averse effect on those who embrace it
(Mt 7:16).
GM>I would prefer to have a rousing debate about the actual issues rather than too
>often engaging with you about my and your behavior.
Remember that you just admitted that you mostly ignore "the actual issues" I raise.
And remember also it is "your behavior" (ie. your ad hominems) which are added to
Glenn's ad hominems FAQ. If there are no more Glenn's ad hominems, there will be
no more Glenn's ad hominems FAQs!
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------