XPost: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.meditation.shabda   
   From: turner.michael@worldnet.att.net   
      
   Laura, your logic stream (which I really like, btw), reminds me of a joke I   
   recently read about a Texan trying to teach his buddy what logic was all   
   about (he was taking a class at the community college) - the punch line   
   being, if you don't have a weed wacker, you're gay.   
      
   I'll try to find the full joke.  It's pretty good.   
      
   mt   
      
      
   "Laura"  wrote in message   
   news:1114748968.449030.313350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...   
   > As I'm sure you must know, "to smell a rat" is a metaphor for detecting   
   > dubious motives in someone, and not at all anything to do with the   
   > sense of smell. I'm sure you know that full well, and still you decided   
   > to take it litterally in a pitiful attempt to make it look like I'm the   
   > stupid one, while handily avoiding the argument altogether. Can you not   
   > see what a cowardly, not to mention childish and ineffective, tactic   
   > that is? Of course I detected it with my intellect. It doesn't really   
   > take much of an intellect, either. You see, you think you're a fountain   
   > of wisdom, but in reality you're just endlessly regurgitating the same   
   > tired old phrases. There is nothing *alive* in your words. It is as if   
   > most of them are not your own, and the few that are suffer from serious   
   > wear.   
   > I consider it odd that most of your references are biblical when you   
   > try to appear as a Guru of the Radhasoami tradition. One would   
   > logically expect that you'd go to the Vedas for quotes, not the Bible.   
   > No, the Vedas are not a part of western culture, but they really do   
   > have a lot of things to say that apply just fine to any culture - more   
   > so than the Bible, in my opinion.   
   >   
   > Your understanding of what ad hominems are is somewhat lacking. You   
   > think it is simply synonymous with personal attacks or statements which   
   > offend your sensibilities. That is, in fact, not what an ad hominem is.   
   > If I were to say "You claim to be equivalent to Jesus Christ, therefore   
   > you must be insane.", that would not be an ad hominem, even if it did   
   > offend you.   
   > On the other hand, if I were to say "You are insane, and therefore you   
   > are wrong.", that *would* be an ad hominem.   
   > You see, it works like this:   
   > 1. A makes claim B   
   > 2. There is something objectionable about A   
   > 3. Therefore claim B is false   
   > As you can probably see, there is something wrong with the logic of   
   > that sequence. That is why the ad hominem is called a logical fallacy.   
   > Interestingly, the very thing you are asking of people is remarkably   
   > similar to "argumentum ad hominem", as I will explain.   
   > Take the above sequence and change the negative into a positive, like   
   > so:   
   > 1. A makes claim B   
   > 2. There is something desirable about A   
   > 3. Therefore claim B is true.   
   > This is clearly just as much of a logical fallacy as the regular ad   
   > hominem. The first we could call an "ad hominem attack". The second we   
   > could call an "ad hominem endorsement", and that is what you ask of   
   > your readers.   
   > We should accept that you are a true representative of God on Earth,   
   > and therefore we should believe that all your claims are true.   
   > Can you see the problem? It's just not a valid argument.   
   > I understand if you do not want to abide by the rules of a logical   
   > argument, but if you don't, I think you should refrain from using   
   > expressions that are used in the context of logical arguments. "Ad   
   > hominem" is one such expression. "Non sequitur" is another.   
   > Perhaps you should change your request that people do not use ad   
   > hominems to a request that people do not use any words or sentences   
   > that can be understood as an insult or provocation. I appreciate that   
   > asking people to avoid "ad hominems" sounds much more serious and   
   > intimidating than asking them to please not attack you, but that is   
   > really what you mean. So you ought to either decide that you can take a   
   > few insults (after all, you don't mind dishing them out), or openly   
   > admit that you only want brown-nosers in your group.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)