FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-20-2009, 12:12 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default Meta discussion on ad hominems, degenerating into examples, split from Acharya S

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave31 View Post
Quote:
Roger "I saw your original post, and felt that perhaps there was some reason in complaining that we didn't take Acharya seriously enough to critique her work, naive though this was."
Ah fair enough. Though I didn't start this thread - it was split off from ...

That's not accurate but, I can't see wasting my own time with folks who irrationally and rigidly adhere to their biases against an authors works they have never actually studied and therefore, know very little about. So, my response was short, I'll admit but, if you want details you can read the books like anybody else would do who's actually interested in the subject. ...

I don't care what you say about Acharya's works as you know nothing about it and conceding the fact that her work actually is just as good if not better than many scholars out there on the subject would be an admission against your own interests, which demonstrates more of your own rigid biases.

At any rate, I'm sorry you wasted your time with a blog critique that was unnecessary. Maybe you could review her latest book titled, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection instead?

I see you're really uptight over a short blog ...
I suppose those who cannot address criticisms of an article must take refuge in ad hominems.

But note the consistent note: "buy this book!" "buy this book!" "buy this book!" in every post, almost in every line. Also note the old publisher's scam, "We're broadcasting the conclusions of our book as hard as we can. No-one is allowed to disagree unless they buy our book".

Since the poster was uninterested in discussing Acharya's online stuff, this looks like a shill.

I'm going to place this creep on ignore.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 01-20-2009, 05:39 AM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
I suppose those who cannot address criticisms of an article must take refuge in ad hominems.
What ad homonems? Dave was very polite with you and even apologized that you felt you wasted your precious time (and I thought Christians had life everlasting?) And then you called him a shill and a creep.

Ad Homonems? I'll show you Ad Homonems if you'd like, but I don't see the ones you're crying about from Dave.
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 01-20-2009, 08:23 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
I suppose those who cannot address criticisms of an article must take refuge in ad hominems.
What ad homonems?
Usually spelt 'ad hominem' -- "against the man" posting, not against the argument made. The classic example is "you only say there is no evidence for X because you are a dirty Jew".

Quote:
That's not accurate but, I can't see wasting my own time with folks who irrationally and rigidly adhere to their biases against an authors works they have never actually studied and therefore, know very little about.
Ad hom.

Quote:
...if you want details you can read the books like anybody else would do who's actually interested in the subject. ...
Ad hom.

Quote:
I don't care what you say about Acharya's works as you know nothing about it and conceding the fact that her work actually is just as good if not better than many scholars out there on the subject would be an admission against your own interests, which demonstrates more of your own rigid biases.
Ad hom.

Quote:
I see you're really uptight over a short blog ...
Ad hom.

In every case he played the man, not the ball. I hope that helps.
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 01-20-2009, 10:23 AM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Yeah, I'm aware what it means. And it wasn't I but rather the spell check that decided to spell it like that. I didn't even notice it until now. Curious.

But whatever the case, I don't see Dave's comments to be anything near insulting enough to earn the smear of "creep".
But you and I have a very different view of reality.
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 01-20-2009, 10:44 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley View Post
Yeah, I'm aware what it means. And it wasn't I but rather the spell check that decided to spell it like that. I didn't even notice it until now. Curious.

But whatever the case, I don't see Dave's comments to be anything near insulting enough to earn the smear of "creep".
I thought the issue was not what "smear" Dave earned (or deserves), but whether or not Dave employed ad hominems instead of arguments in his response to Roger's posts.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 01-20-2009, 10:53 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Usually spelt 'ad hominem' -- "against the man" posting, not against the argument made. The classic example is "you only say there is no evidence for X because you are a dirty Jew".
JW:
A better one is:

You are just another Christian lying for Jesus.

All the best.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.