>Jim Tantillo wrote:
>>Let me just preface this by saying "Budiansky is a jerk."
>>
>>Let me quickly add that if that were all my comments, then that statement
>>would constitute an ad hominem of the depreciatory variety (presumably one
>>of the "Heinz 57"). If instead, I were to say simply, "Budiansky is a
>>saint," and *nothing* more, then that would also constitute an ad hominem,
>>albeit of the appreciatory variety (again, one of "57").
>
>A simple statement by itself is not an arguement.
"I think you are wrong." :-)
The statement may only be
>a premiss. So whether Budiansky is a 'jerk' or a 'saint' does not constitute
>an ad hominem arguement.
>
>Ad hominem arguments are ones that do not argue for or against a position
>based on interests, but positions based on the character of the person with
>the interests. The intent of the ad hominem is to 'shame' the actor, rather
>than 'shame' the act.
>
>john foster
>
>"In Arizona I remember soft fluffy clouds catching colors reflected
>everywhere. Long narrow clouds trailing off into the horizons."
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|