However, many of my positions are Reformed and so after many years of intense study I am comfortable stating I am within the Reformed theological camp.
Those of other views, Christian or non-Christian, liberal Christian or conservative Christian, are welcome. But, I do not want to argue on and on in circles. At times we need to simply state a case and then leave it at that, as we have made our best points and there is no point repeating them over and over.
In other words, there is no point beating an opponent over the head.
I am interested in loving others as much as I love myself (Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 10, Galatians 5). I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks.
Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). Simon Blackburn explains that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments.
From:
logical fallacy
Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.
I will not, with God's help attack someone personally within the context of a debate or discussion in order to strengthen my case, because it does not work. I also will not accept this treatment in return.
This is not to conclude that it is ad hominem to state that someone is 'this or is that' if it is accurate and out of the context of a debate and discussion. I can avoid the use of ad hominem against someone in a debate that is being 'a this or that', but I simply do not use a personal attack within the argument.
So, yes, sometimes someone is being a jerk, but I do not use that as a form of argumentation.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Autumn
