The previous two posts dealt with a FAIRBLOG thread redefining the word ad hominem. With charges of ad hominem, suppression, etc., apologist tend to torture the definition of words to give the words a severely restricted scope. Of course this methodology implies the apologist concedes the point given the language’s usage in its native form. In the thread the fair authors defend fellow fair contributors and the LDS Church from accusations of ad hominem attacks by disregarding the following definitions:
“Appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. Attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.”(dictionary.com) “Involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument” (wikipedia)
Absence these definitions, the FAIR bloggers insisted the LDS Leadership who excommunicated Simon Southerton for an “inappropriate relationship” instead of apostasy, are not guilty of an ad hominem attack. However, using the example provided by FAIR in my previous post regarding Westion’s 17 points we do the following substitution:
It seems that [the critic] Southerton’s Stake President is attempting to discredit [Weston's list] Southerton’s thesis by discrediting [Weston] Southerton himself. This would be a form of the ad hominem fallacy.
Ergo, from the FAIR blog (here) to the FAIR article (here) we see FAIR behaving inconsistently (is this the definition of unFAIR?).
“Appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. Attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.”(dictionary.com) “Involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument” (wikipedia)
Absence these definitions, the FAIR bloggers insisted the LDS Leadership who excommunicated Simon Southerton for an “inappropriate relationship” instead of apostasy, are not guilty of an ad hominem attack. However, using the example provided by FAIR in my previous post regarding Westion’s 17 points we do the following substitution:
It seems that [the critic] Southerton’s Stake President is attempting to discredit [Weston's list] Southerton’s thesis by discrediting [Weston] Southerton himself. This would be a form of the ad hominem fallacy.
Ergo, from the FAIR blog (here) to the FAIR article (here) we see FAIR behaving inconsistently (is this the definition of unFAIR?).
No comments:
Post a Comment