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:
> 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 -
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 <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 -
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 <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.
> 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 <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
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.
On Jul 3, 6:47 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@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 <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.
> > 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 <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > - 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 -- Hide quoted text -
> 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.
> On Jul 3, 6:47 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@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 <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.
> > > 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?
> > > > 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.
> > > > - 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 -- Hide quoted text -
> I disagree with your entire analysis of ad hominem. I agree with the
> flame wars, therefore, I will no longer post.
> On Jul 3, 5:57 pm, 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. 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.
> > On Jul 3, 6:47 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@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.
> > > > 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?
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > - 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 -- Hide quoted text -
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.
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.
> 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?
> > 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! :-) > > > > On Jul 3, 7:36 am, Kierkecraig 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 -- Hide quoted text -
