Quote:
Originally Posted by A smart person
I do not disagree with your arguments because of who you are. I disagree because I don't think your some of your methods and ideals are wrong and ilogical.
|
For the sake of the argument, let us disregard your double negative.
First case: because of who you are. That would be a fallacy called
ad hominem. So nice that you have overcome that type of argumentation. You know, most people never do!
On to the second part. As you have mastered avoiding the
ad hominem you can avoid these, too.
Wrong methods: valid sometimes but ultimately it is possible to come to the right conclusions with inadequate methods by intuition, chance or luck. You should look at the issue and not the path. Certainly, results obtained with questionable methods may need to be repeated with solid methodology and you are most welcome to do that any time.
Wrong ideals: the same here. A stray abandoned dog is fed because of altruism and another because the helping human wants to gain prestige by showing off although she hates dogs. The dog still gets fed and treated. Wrong ideals perhaps but not necessarily significant in the context. Certainly, you are welcome to provide the context any time.
The result and conclusion need not be wrong although the path to them be fallacious. This is
the fallacist's fallacy. It is a tougher one than
ad hominem but not impossible to avoid.
Wrong ideals?
Luke 19:14
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
Yours in Christ,
Elmer