From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Spiritual Gifts/10, Temporary Gifts Discontinued
Date: 30 Sep 1998 22:59:38 GMT

Able <> wrote:
> On 30 Sep 1998 08:05:02 GMT, Chris Ho-Stuart <>
> wrote:

> >Able <> wrote:
> >> And his critics this week who mysteriously appeared this week , are
> >> more often than not from the atheist ranks..now why is that.?
> >
> >This looks perilously close to argumentum ad hominem.

> Hi Chris.
> Yes I would have to agree with you Chris.
> Graeme is often attacked without cause..
> Especially by liberals and atheists.

There have been all kinds of folks who have been critical of Graeme,
and they are not all liberals or atheists; so why "especially" in
that sentence?

It is perilously close to ad hominem to discount comments because of
who is making them.

> People can only see Graeme and want to attack him..
> Thereby not listening to what he has to say..

This is a newsgroup. The only information we have of each other
(with a few fortunate exceptions where folks have been able to meet)
is what we write. If people in the newsgroup are attacked then it
IS in reaction of what they say.  Of course that is not to say all
attacks are valid!

> >And just what is *mysterious* here?
>
> Well Graeme has also been attacked by two atheists this week ,
> yourself and another. Now why would you two decide to have a go at
> him. Not at his arguments but ad hominem.
> It certainly is no mystery to me why atheists do this..
> Do you realise why?

Actually, your descriptions of my dispute with Graeme are incorrect.

I did not make any argumentum ad hominem, and I did base my comments
on what he said. I referred strictly to his arguments -- and not
on any particular irrelevant personal charactersitics (ad hominem).

However, for you to make my atheism somehow relevant IS ad hominem.

> And also why you come  the  argumentum ad hominem..with me.

I have not made ANY argumentum ad hominem with you. But if you
continue to use my atheism as a basis for refuting anything I
say, then you are certainly using ad hominem.

> As does an other . Funny that.
> Never contributing anything positive ..just lurking.
> Did you see my Parable of the Three Chickens?
> It was about atheists and liberals on this ng.
> Have you asked yourselves about argumentum ad hominem.?
> BTW this is not argumentum ad hominem. 
> It is about atheism and christian liberals.

In so far as remarks from atheists and christian liberals are
treated differently because they are from atheists and christian
liberals, you are wrong. It IS argumentum ad hominem.

I think you may not know what ad hominem means. Let me illustrate:

    Case 1. XYZ is a no good lying hypocritical piece of

    sewrage. He accused me of posting binaries,

    when I have done no such thing; and XYZ's

    posting signature includes a 4Kbyte jpeg.

    Analysis: Remarks are over the top, but not ad hominem,

      since a real case is made based not on who said

      something but based on what was said.

    Case 2. Dr. XYZ has recently lost his job and I sympathize

    with his position. Clearly he is upset, and his

    comments should not be taken seriously.

    Analysis: Ad hominem. Compassionate, and possible even constructive.

      But ad hominem, since an argument is dismissed based on

      who said it, without reference to content.

    Case 3: I understand the motivations of all agnostics, and know

    why they attack XYZ. Agnostic motivations are impure,

    and agnostics suck rocks, so the attack is invalid. Besides,

    they always use argument ad hominem.

    Analysis: Ad hominem. Clear and blatant.

Hope this helps.

> So don't take it personally.
>
> Able.

Not taken personally at all, I assure you.

Best -- Chris