[LMB] OT: The End of Slavery
WILLIAM A WENRICH
wawenri at msn.com
Fri Sep 3 13:54:43 BST 2021
Yes, Pizza, Pizza, Pizza
At this point I don’t know what the original dispute was about. All I see is people attacking each other. Please stop.
William A Wenrich
Christian, Husband, Father, Granddaddy, Son, & American. Here I am. I can do no other. God help me!
From: Lois-Bujold <lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk> on behalf of Raymond Collins <rcrcoll6 at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 1:48:14 AM
To: Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold. <lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [LMB] OT: The End of Slavery
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021, 8:58 PM Matthew George <matt.msg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 9:35 PM B Van Look <vanlook19 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a textbook example of an Ad Hominem logical fallacy.
> No, it's an insult. To quote Wikipedia:
> Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker
> > attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person
> > an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
> > This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but
> > often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A
> > makes a claim *x*, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome,
> > and hence B concludes that argument *x* is wrong".
> I've already presented analysis of the arguments in question, explained in
> great detail where they fail, noted that the same errors are repeated again
> and again regardless of the number of times they are corrected, and
> concluded that they are either made with intent or out of intellectual
> incompetence. Insults are not being substituted for arguments, they are
> being made =because of= arguments - invalid arguments that contradict
> elementary principles of which no one with a mental age greater than five
> can be expected to be ignorant of, and which stand in contradiction to
> simple, easily-verified facts which no one capable of composing and sending
> email can defensibly claim not to be able to check.
> Anyone can make a mistake, have a blind spot, fail to perceive a point.
> When someone persistently does any of those things, we are =obliged= to
> inquire as to their motivations and/or mental capacities. What do you
> expect us to believe: your protestations, or our lying minds?
> brazee's refusal to acknowledge simple facts and elementary reasoning is
> quite uncharacteristic; I am saddened and disappointed, but this does not
> invalidate his general pattern of intelligent conversation and reasonable
> discussion. Neither you nor Grabnar have a track record of good arguments;
> instead, you have a consistent pattern of refusing to acknowledge obvious
> conclusions and well-known facts, and I am tired of your nonsense.
> I do not argue that your arguments are wrong because you are an ignorant
> fool or a liar. I conclude that you are a liar or an ignorant fool because
> your arguments are consistently wrong. My stating the conclusion renders
> it an insult; the facts render it a highly defensible judgment.
> Matt G.
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to rcrcoll6 at gmail.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to wawenri at msn.com
Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
More information about the Lois-Bujold