Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmer G. White
We'll look at the indirect ones in due course if necessary.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Propianotuner1
... that is a hilarious criticism considering the ad homs spewed on this site, including those used by Hammer against myself in this thread. So who is guilty sophistry after all? It appears to be you and Hammer, monsieur.
|
Now, Brethren, this is again a good example of a fallacy, this time the
tu quoque (in many sources one of the
indirect ad hominem types). Instead of assessing one's own misgivings, the opponent tries to avoid responsability by
turning the accusation around. However, this does not remove the original
ad hominem committed by this person at all. Certainly, it is quite possible to discuss the rhetoric of Mr Hammer separately (in his case, the apparent harsh language is necessary to guide sinners towards understanding their own depravity), but that is an argument does is
irrelevant when it comes to the
ad hominems of this poster.
Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Now, Jesus can say this, because He is above criticism and sin. For the others, the tu quoque is a fallacy. In addition, your previous statement included the assertion that the Firmament was something else than understood by Mr. Hammer. If this is the case, you should have discussed the Firmament and not Mr. Hammer. Similarly, over here, it is your ad hominem that was scrutinized. The guilt is not diminished by others doing the same thing. The situation is similar to the one where you could murder and sodomize boys because "the catholics do it also". Even if someone else does it, it is still wrong if you do it.
I'm curious if we'll see some other fallacies in the near future.
Yours in Christ,
Elmer