Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: ad hominem

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: ad hominem
  • Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:08:37 -0700


NPL,
> It is rather interesting--illustrated by the attached mail--that some people
> on the list seem constantly to play the trick: Your are going after me
> rather than after what I said, thereby sidestepping the issue that you have
> to answer an attack on your opinions at all. Some take any negative reply to
> be ad hominem. To a--excuse me--ultra conservative, any attack on one's
> position seems to be the same as to attack the person in question ad
> hominem. You are attacking this person's religion since the
> ultra-conservative knows the truth in advance. Therefore anyy attack on an
> opinion expressed by such a person must be 'ad hominem'.

Let's get real here, shall we? Nobody but you has brought in
anything resembling "ultra-conservative" viewpoints. Peter's point,
and mine as well, is that Ian needs to read the material he is
fussing about before doing any more fussing. Rather than do that,
he lumps Rohl, about whom he actually knows virtually nothing,
with Velikovsky. What is the purpose of this? Perhaps you can
explain it; but it seems to me that it's nothing more than simple
guilt by association. Do you consider this good scholarship?
Why? And why is it only acceptable for one side of the discussion
to engage in it? The fact is, lumping Rohl with Velikovsky without
even doing Rohl the courtesy of reading him is simple ad hominem,
backed up with guilt by association. He is doing his best to try
and discount a viewpoint by dragging in a name that really has
nothing to do with anything. He has done this several times, and
each time someone has nailed him on it. Yet, it's all he has
because he really doesn't know what he's talking about. He
doesn't know what he's talking about because he hasn't read it.
This has nothing to do with ultra-conservatism, and I think you
know it. It has everything to do with having a clue what you're
talking about before you rail against someone, and it has
everything to do with dragging a name out of left field in order to try
and discount something you haven't even read. Now I see you
doing the same thing, except that instead of Velikovsky, it's "ultra-
conservative." The method is the same, the truth is that the topic
has been dragged in from the sidelines but has nothing to do with
the matter at hand, and still neither of you has read the book. This
kind of approach is not within the realm of what I would call
scholarship, no matter how many ways one tries to define it in
one's own favor.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
Psalm 86:11



  • ad hominem, Niels Peter Lemche, 02/17/2000
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: ad hominem, Dave Washburn, 02/17/2000
    • RE: ad hominem, Niels Peter Lemche, 02/17/2000
    • Re: ad hominem, Peter Kirk, 02/17/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page