Omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory

[phyllo]

Ok so you seem to have the odd belief that attacking a persons ability to reason when it bears direct relevance to the argument is somehow an ad hom. It is not. Calling someone an idiot is an ad hom, attacking their ability to make cogent arguments due to their bias is part and parcel of debate.

You're right. An ad hom is aimed at a specific person and since you are targeting a group - it's not an ad hom, it's just prejudice.

[Helandhighwater]

Ok so you seem to have the odd belief that attacking a persons ability to reason when it bears direct relevance to the argument is somehow an ad hom. It is not. Calling someone an idiot is an ad hom, attacking their ability to make cogent arguments due to their bias is part and parcel of debate.

You're right. An ad hom is aimed at a specific person and since you are targeting a group - it's not an ad hom, it's just prejudice.

Why is saying that groups, not a group don't have all the answer be they Christian, Taoist or Jew prejudice?

I am prejudiced against everyone who decides that they have all the answers, but does not tackle the inconsistencies absolutes bring. Surely you see the inherent incoherence in that argument?

[James S Saint]

Unless the subject is psychology, it is still a logical ad hom.
The abilities of the person presenting the argument is not the subject of the argument.
The argument, even of an entire group, might be fallacious, but addressing the people's mental faculties rather than those people's arguments is exactly what "ad hominem" means.

[Helandhighwater]

Unless the subject is psychology, it is still a logical ad hom.
The abilities of the person presenting the argument is not the subject of the argument.
The argument, even of an entire group, might be fallacious, but addressing the people's mental faculties rather than those people's arguments is exactly what "ad hominem" means.

No it is if a persons bias makes them subject to an inability to weigh others arguments, it is a valid point. Are you genuinely saying bias and it's ability to render logic somewhat questionable is an ad hom? So if I say for example a confessed zealot of Islam is not right because his judgement is clouded by his absolute inability to be wrong about anything that is dogmatic in his faith, that is an ad hom? Sure whatever you say.

Groups by the way, groups, it is a key point, I never attack any one group I attack absolute faith as a whole.

[James S Saint]

Unless the subject is psychology, it is still a logical ad hom.
The abilities of the person presenting the argument is not the subject of the argument.
The argument, even of an entire group, might be fallacious, but addressing the people's mental faculties rather than those people's arguments is exactly what "ad hominem" means.

No it is if a persons bias makes them subject to an inability to weigh others arguments, it is a valid point.

Not unless that person's bias is the actual topic of debate.

Are you genuinely saying bias and it's ability to render logic somewhat questionable is an ad hom?

No. I am saying that if I right now were to merely say that you are obviously too dumb to see what I am saying, then that would constitute an ad hom. It doesn't matter if my statement is true or not. It isn't an issue of defamation of character. It is an issue of addressing the actual topic of debtate, not those debating.

[Helandhighwater]

Unless the subject is psychology, it is still a logical ad hom.
The abilities of the person presenting the argument is not the subject of the argument.
The argument, even of an entire group, might be fallacious, but addressing the people's mental faculties rather than those people's arguments is exactly what "ad hominem" means.

No it is if a persons bias makes them subject to an inability to weigh others arguments, it is a valid point.

Not unless that person's bias is the actual topic of debate.

Lol what where in any definition of an ad hom does it state that?

Questioning someone's motives and bias, is not an ad hom. If it is it renders the whole term pointless, and means it per se is not actually a coherent fallacy.

Another example if I claim absolutely that The pink Unicorn is pink, because that is the faith I was raised in and only that faith is right, despite never having seen the unicorn, is it an ad hominem to say that comes with a bias that is not logical?

Are you genuinely saying bias and it's ability to render logic somewhat questionable is an ad hom?

No. I am saying that if I right now were to merely say that you are obviously too dumb to see what I am saying, then that would constitute an ad hom. It doesn't matter if my statement is true or not. It isn't an issue of defamation of character. It is an issue of addressing the actual topic of debtate, not those debating.

Abusing whom? People who are absolutists, people who have an absolute solution to everything in their faith structure?

Are you really going to carry on with the idea that claiming absolutes and absolutists are inherently dubious, because seriously you are not going to win that one.

[James S Saint]

ad hom·i·nem (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

[Helandhighwater]

ad hom·i·nem (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

Questions about the notion of an ad hominem fallacy

Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[14]

Yeah we can all quote bible and verse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Not that I actually did that but there we go, if I had it would not be an ad hom, to render such relevancies as specious on the basis of absolutes renders such terms pointless.

So you are saying that questioning absolutism, no one person, no one faith is an ad hom- against whom, I asked once you didn't answer?

I have attacked apologism and I have attacked absolutism across all faiths and non faiths. This is an ad hom. Perhaps only in those who chose to see themselves as being attacked?

[James S Saint]

Questions about the notion of an ad hominem fallacy

Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[14]

I stated right off the bat that IF the issue or topic is psychology (moral issues) then such ad hom concerns do not apply.

The question is merely what the actual topic is or isn't. If the motives of a person are the topic, then ad hom doesn't apply.
Your quotes merely reaffirmed what I stated.

So you are saying that questioning absolutism, no one person, no one faith is an ad hom-

Read the above. Obviously if the topic of discussion is absolutism, then such remarks are not ad hom, but specifically on topic.

I have attacked apologism and I have attacked absolutism across all faiths and non faiths. This is an ad hom. Perhaps only in those who chose to see themselves as being attacked?

No, if that is what you actually did (I haven't looked) then that wouldn't be an ad hom.

Stick to the actual topic matter and ad hom isn't an issue.
If the people themselves IS the topic, then ad hom isn't an issue anyway.

[Helandhighwater]

Questions about the notion of an ad hominem fallacy

Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[14]

I stated right off the bat that IF the issue or topic is psychology (moral issues) then such ad hom concerns do not apply.

The question is merely what the actual topic is or isn't. If the motives of a person are the topic, then ad hom doesn't apply.
Your quotes merely reaffirmed what I stated.

So you are saying that questioning absolutism, no one person, no one faith is an ad hom-

Read the above. Obviously if the topic of discussion is absolutism, then such remarks are not ad hom, but specifically on topic.

I have attacked apologism and I have attacked absolutism across all faiths and non faiths. This is an ad hom. Perhaps only in those who chose to see themselves as being attacked?

No, if that is what you actually did (I haven't looked) then that wouldn't be an ad hom.

Stick to the actual topic matter and ad hom isn't an issue.
If the people themselves IS the topic, then ad hom isn't an issue anyway.

So basically you haven't read the thread, I have not attacked any one person or faith, I have not committed an ad hominem but you felt the need to chastise me anyway? Read the thread.

Stick to the subject matter? You accuse me of an ad hominem, why don't you actually admit you were wrong, then I'll stick to the topic. Until you or Ucciscore, actually stick to what I actually said, I see no reason to afford you the same consideration. Seems to me if you want consideration or anyone does they aught to afford me the same consideration, not make up my argument, tell me they could make me look like an idiot, which let's face it is an ad hominem. And then in their hypocrisy accuse me of an ad hom I did not make. It's very easy to make hypocrites look hypocritical FYI that is not an ad hom either.

I hope the point is well made.

[James S Saint]

If the topic is;
"Why do Jews believe in a god?"
And a reply is given;
"Because they are just plain dumb".

That is a poor argument, but it isn't a logical ad hominem.

[Helandhighwater]

If the topic is;
"Why do Jews believe in a god?"
And a reply is given;
"Because they are just plain dumb".

That is a poor argument, but it isn't a logical ad hominem.

Did you even read what I said?

Obviously not. Please try and keep up, it will be so much easier if you can.

Beside the point but that is an ad hom. Bad example.

[James S Saint]

So basically you haven't read the thread, I have not attacked any one person or faith, I have not committed an ad hominem but you felt the need to chastise me anyway? Read the thread.

I have not attacked or accused YOU.
Again,
STICK
TO
THE
TOPIC

I commented on what an actual "ad hominem" means.

You taking it personally is Your doing.

[James S Saint]

Beside the point but that is an ad hom. Bad example.

And no it isn't.

[Helandhighwater]

So basically you haven't read the thread, I have not attacked any one person or faith, I have not committed an ad hominem but you felt the need to chastise me anyway? Read the thread.

I have not attacked or accused YOU.
Again,
STICK
TO
THE
TOPIC

I commented on what an actual "ad hominem" means.

You taking it personally is Your doing.

I never took it personally I asked you to justify why you are making an issue out of this, you have chosen not to. Someone doesnt' was lyrical for 10 posts about ad homs because no on has made an ad hom. That would be a thread derail and you would be just as guilty of straying off topic.

[Helandhighwater]

Beside the point but that is an ad hom. Bad example.

And no it isn't.

Lol really, Christ.

You are confused about the term ad hom.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]

[James S Saint]

Don't call me Christ in public.

[Helandhighwater]

Don't call me Christ in public.

I edited can you explain to me just what you understand an ad hom is? Because I think you are somehow not aware of what it is.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]

wiki.

Now in what way is your example not an ad hom?

EDIT: to say wiki.

[phyllo]

Why is saying that groups, not a group don't have all the answer be they Christian, Taoist or Jew prejudice?

I am prejudiced against everyone who decides that they have all the answers, but does not tackle the inconsistencies absolutes bring. Surely you see the inherent incoherence in that argument?

That's not what you said here:

Apologists are interesting people, they have a great deal of ways of saying just believe, and a great lack of ability in logic.

Is that not a prejudiced statement against a group you call apologists? Pretty much the same as saying "_____s are stupid". What else could it be?

[Helandhighwater]

Why is saying that groups, not a group don't have all the answer be they Christian, Taoist or Jew prejudice?

I am prejudiced against everyone who decides that they have all the answers, but does not tackle the inconsistencies absolutes bring. Surely you see the inherent incoherence in that argument?

That's not what you said here:

Apologists are interesting people, they have a great deal of ways of saying just believe, and a great lack of ability in logic.

Is that not a prejudiced statement against a group you call apologists? Pretty much the same as saying "_____s are stupid". What else could it be?

What I don't even know what you are saying here? It makes no sense, true you cherry picked one comment out of a dozen, and chose to ignore all the rest but why? Why bother, you must know that ignoring the bulk of an argument and quote mining is about as effective as punching yourself in the nose to remedy a nose bleed.

Apologists are guilty of cherry picking in the same way, but I never single out any one person, creed or lack of faith. So again please try to address the argument.

did I say Ucciscore was an idiot, did I say any of his faith were, did I attack anyone of any one faith particularly at any point (particularly pertinent to point out I don't even know what his faith is nor is it relevant to any of the points I made), if so please try to refrain from quote mining, attack the argument, not a thread bare (if you'll pardon the pun) mini quote that is a waste of my time and yours.

[phyllo]

What I don't even know what you are saying here? It makes no sense, true you cherry picked one comment out of a dozen, and chose to ignore all the rest but why? Why bother, you must know that ignoring the bulk of an argument and quote mining is about as effective as punching yourself in the nose to remedy a nose bleed.

Apologists are guilty of cherry picking in the same way, but I never single out any one person, creed or lack of faith. So again please try to address the argument.

did I say ucciscore was an idiot, did I say any of his faith were, did I attack anyone of any one faith at any point, if so please try to refrain from quote mining, attack the argument, not a thread bare mini quote that is a waste of my time and yours.

I didn't cherry pick. Uccisore already quoted that same line and responded to it. It's prejudiced. And it's central to your arguments.

To sum up : you won't debate an apologist because you think he/she will not present logical arguments. Okay.

[James S Saint]

Don't call me Christ in public.

I edited can you explain to me just what you understand an ad hom is? Because I think you are somehow not aware of what it is.

The term "ad hominem" literally means "addressing the person". In Logic, that "person" is specifically the debater under the assumption that the debater isn't the actual topic. In logic debate, it amounts to being off topic, "irrelevant".

Now in what way is your example not an ad hom?

In the example that I proposed, the topic was "WHY", for what reason or cause, do Jews believe in a god.
The reply was (although it be poor) that the reason (the actual topic proposed) is that they are simply dumb.

In that example, the reply exactly fit the topic proposed. It addressed the reason or cause of their belief.

[Helandhighwater]

What I don't even know what you are saying here? It makes no sense, true you cherry picked one comment out of a dozen, and chose to ignore all the rest but why? Why bother, you must know that ignoring the bulk of an argument and quote mining is about as effective as punching yourself in the nose to remedy a nose bleed.

Apologists are guilty of cherry picking in the same way, but I never single out any one person, creed or lack of faith. So again please try to address the argument.

did I say ucciscore was an idiot, did I say any of his faith were, did I attack anyone of any one faith at any point, if so please try to refrain from quote mining, attack the argument, not a thread bare mini quote that is a waste of my time and yours.

I didn't cherry pick. Uccisore already quoted that same line and responded to it. It's prejudiced. And it's central to your arguments.

To sum up : you won't debate an apologist because you think he/she will not present logical arguments. Okay.

Never said that straw man. What did I actually say? Do you even know?

I notice you don't quote what I said now, because if you did it would make your argument unsound. This is not cherry picking this is worse, this is not even bothering to acknowledge what I said in the argument before you make it. I can only assume you think everyone who is reading this has not read it either?Can you actually make an argument that relates to what I said.

I love how you tend to ignore any questions, just like everyone else, and just jump into logical fallacies like a diver a diver who has not seen the sea in ten years and really needs to.

[Helandhighwater]

Don't call me Christ in public.

I edited can you explain to me just what you understand an ad hom is? Because I think you are somehow not aware of what it is.

The term "ad hominem" literally means "addressing the person". In Logic, that "person" is specifically the debater under the assumption that the debater isn't the actual topic. In logic debate, it amounts to being off topic, "irrelevant".

Now in what way is your example not an ad hom?

In the example that I proposed, the topic was "WHY", for what reason or cause do Jews believe in a god.
The reply was (although it be poor) that the reason (the actual topic proposed) is that they are simply dumb.

In that example, the reply exactly fit the topic proposed. It addressed the reason or cause of their belief.

You are just wrong.

In your example the reply is an ad hom, regardless of the topic or anything else, and regardless of any analogy you care to make, regardless of what you say or anything you compare it to, it just is, not only because I never do that, but just because it is an ad hom. Unless you want to change the definition of an ad hom of course that will always be an ad hom, which is another debate. The I think in this cherry picked case is funny, just as I think Phylo is reaching, but hell this is fun you are all really entertaining in your inconsistency, by all means lay on.

[James S Saint]

Now I'm curious Hel, what exactly has been you topic of debate?