5 ms·

My logical and rhetorical integrity is intact, you don't really know what ad hominem means. It means to raise some irrelevant fact about the person making the

by dmfdmf 8y ago

My logical and rhetorical integrity is intact, you don't really know what ad hominem means. It means to raise some irrelevant fact about the person making the argument as a reason to dismiss what the person is claiming. E.g. don't listen to Binswanger because he is rich. The vast majority of people who attack or dismiss or smear Ayn Rand have not (or superficially) read what she wrote but this is a fact that IS relevant to whether their opinion on Ayn Rand has any merit so its not ad hom.

Semirhage 8y ago
Reassertion of your unsupported claim about who has and hasn’t read something still isn’t an argument, it’s stil a straw man. Do you have any substance to offer?
- dmfdmf 8y ago
  Before we move on to your new Straw Man accusation, let's close out your old accusation that my argument is Ad Hom. Do you concede that point, if not why?
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    There’s nothing new here. That is ad hominem against a straw man, so I’m applying grains of salt heavily to your commitment to logical and rhetorical integrity. Is the first thing I said. Meanwhile I stand by it, but it seemed prudent to break it down point by point until you had nowhere left to go. “All of these people I must invented haven’t even read the books!” Is still just what I said it was.
    - dmfdmf 8y ago
      The implication of your position (i.e., that my argument is Ad Hom) is that the validity or merit of someone's opinion of Ayn Rand's work is independent of whether they have read her work or not is absurd on the face of it. It implies that people can have valid or valuable opinions on subjects of which they are completely ignorant. These implications are independent of whether my claim is true or false (which, I agree, is a disputable point or at least one that must be validated). > Meanwhile I stand by it... You can stand all you want but your position is not defensible in logic. I will repeat what I previously stated: You do not know what Ad Hom means. I know this for a fact because you fail to see an obvious implication of your position. We can address the validity of my claim but only if you see that my argument is not Ad Hom. If not then there is not much else to discuss.
      - Semirhage 8y ago
        ...are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas. Remember saying that? I’m getting tired of having to “remind” you of what has been said, so yes, we’re done.
        dmfdmf 8y ago
        The Vietnam strategy; declare victory and retreat. Since to you logic is a game, like chess, you should study our little exchange and see how you lost in your very first move. But logic is not a game (it is our means to knowledge) but if you treat it as such it is a game you can never win, even if you do.

by dmfdmf 8y ago

Semirhage 8y ago

Reassertion of your unsupported claim about who has and hasn’t read something still isn’t an argument, it’s stil a straw man. Do you have any substance to offer?

dmfdmf 8y ago
Before we move on to your new Straw Man accusation, let's close out your old accusation that my argument is Ad Hom. Do you concede that point, if not why?
- Semirhage 8y ago
  There’s nothing new here. That is ad hominem against a straw man, so I’m applying grains of salt heavily to your commitment to logical and rhetorical integrity. Is the first thing I said. Meanwhile I stand by it, but it seemed prudent to break it down point by point until you had nowhere left to go. “All of these people I must invented haven’t even read the books!” Is still just what I said it was.
  - dmfdmf 8y ago
    The implication of your position (i.e., that my argument is Ad Hom) is that the validity or merit of someone's opinion of Ayn Rand's work is independent of whether they have read her work or not is absurd on the face of it. It implies that people can have valid or valuable opinions on subjects of which they are completely ignorant. These implications are independent of whether my claim is true or false (which, I agree, is a disputable point or at least one that must be validated). > Meanwhile I stand by it... You can stand all you want but your position is not defensible in logic. I will repeat what I previously stated: You do not know what Ad Hom means. I know this for a fact because you fail to see an obvious implication of your position. We can address the validity of my claim but only if you see that my argument is not Ad Hom. If not then there is not much else to discuss.
    - Semirhage 8y ago
      ...are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas. Remember saying that? I’m getting tired of having to “remind” you of what has been said, so yes, we’re done.
      - dmfdmf 8y ago
        The Vietnam strategy; declare victory and retreat. Since to you logic is a game, like chess, you should study our little exchange and see how you lost in your very first move. But logic is not a game (it is our means to knowledge) but if you treat it as such it is a game you can never win, even if you do.