RoR: Forum

Mike,

===============
Asking about this experience leads to understanding the contextual basis of Michael's belief's about adult behavior around children in need. You three would make this understanding "off limits".
===============

Not true, but publicly putting that personal question to him -- when the related idea was being rationally discussed -- is a form of ad hominem. Hong's question would be appropriate by email, along with her then asking MSK if she can go public about his personal life. It's like discussing honesty, and then challenging someone personally -- in public -- over whether they've ever lied. Get it? We're not a big family here.

==============
your attack on Hong
==============

Be clear here, I 'attacked' a behavior, not a person (didn't even mention her name). And I would appreciate for you to keep that distinction in your mind -- in future discussions of this with me.

Ed

Post 21

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 8:46am

What Ed said.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 9:54am

About that quote - it is a combination of the words and actions, and especially, an incongruence between the two, that children are very keenly aware of.

In the end tho, most education is self education.

John

Post 23

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 1:28pm

"Not true, but publicly putting that personal question to him -- when the related idea was being rationally discussed -- is a form of ad hominem. Hong's question would be appropriate by email, along with her then asking MSK if she can go public about his personal life. It's like discussing honesty, and then challenging someone personally -- in public -- over whether they've ever lied. Get it? We're not a big family here.

"Be clear here, I 'attacked' a behavior, not a person (didn't even mention her name). And I would appreciate for you to keep that distinction in your mind -- in future discussions of this with me."

About ad hominem, isn't there a difference between being professional and being social. On this forum I don�t see any problem with asking difficult personal questions of anyone or thinking outloud that someone is silly or a fool or brilliant. No one has to answer it. I understand that professional intellectuals in their professional work must be careful of ad hominem but does it matter socially?

ahhahaha, for example I think Ed is being pompous!

And I think Hong is wicked! And I adore it!

Michael

Post 24

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 1:47pm

Ed wrote: "This is the kind of psycho-babble bullshit I deal with from our resident expert-on-the-soul, Newberry."

Ed, that is rude of you.

But the good thing is that I see it as a mini-tantrum attack.

Count to ten, remind yourself that your not 17, and in good faith ask me what you don�t understand. I will rise up to any logical argument though I apologize if I pepper them with an artistic temperament�I get bored by logic isolated from life.

Michael

Post 25

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 2:05pm

(scratching my head, waking up)

Whazzat? Huh? Where am I?

At least I didn't starve my kids...

//;-)

Michael

Post 26

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 7:08pm

Ed,

A "form" of ad hominem?

Hong is straightforward with her questions, so what? Are you afraid that Michael will get his feelings hurt? He's about the toughest SOB here.

This is open forum. Michael turned over a rock, I'm certain he didn't think there wouldn't be any hard questions. We are supposed to be adults.

You guys missed the target by a very wide margin. Suggestion: think, then write.

"Be clear here, I 'attacked' a behavior, not a person"

What, Hong is child now?

Post 27

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 7:15pm

Mike,

I don�t really mind much at all the comment from Jason, Aaron and Ed. It appears none of them has read MSK�s previous articles. But again, it seems most people here including yourself do not see what I see from those articles. Everything I posted here you can find in MSK�s articles. Yes, I have read most of them and remember the gist of them. And I tend to interpret what people are really saying in the context of their own lives. Thus I can be very keen on the consistency/contradictions in what people are saying and what they actually do. When I encounter them, and if I care enough, I would like clarifications.

Ed,

Exactly what did I said qualifies as �ad hominem� attack?

Ciro,

I completely agree with you when you said �I think Michael is responsible for his new family with Kat�. Can you tell me how has MSK been responsible and supportive of his new family with Kat?

Post 28

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 7:22pm

Earlier, Hong said: "Yes, it would have all been none of my business if you haven't thrown your "Lamb" article and "starving child in the wood" scenario in everyone's face again and again."

Queen takes pawn, - Checkmate.

Post 29

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 7:34pm

George,

Just one little correction. The first time I mentioned Lamb in months was on this thread. That is not "again and again." (And it happens to be very much appreciated by many other people, so just don't read it if it bothers you. Some people see victimization in it and others see triumph - I guess it depends on your sense-of-life.)

Are you people now taking lessons in rhetoric from Andy Postema? I had a higher opinion before...

Michael

Post 30

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 8:32pm

Hong, I wish I could give you a precise answer, but I can't.

Post 31

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 9:50pm

Newberry,

=============
I understand that professional intellectuals in their professional work must be careful of ad hominem but does it matter socially?
=============

Pretty good point, actually.

=============
ahhahaha, for example I think Ed is being pompous!
=============

Umm, pretty good point, too ... actually.

[having or exhibiting self-importance : MAGNIFICENT ]

;-)

=============
And I think Hong is wicked!
=============

And I think you're joking (or deluded). Hong is not half as wicked as you'd like to think she is, Michael. You're practicing selective omission -- taking what it is about her that invigorates you, and ignoring what doesn't.

=============
Ed, that is rude of you.
=============

Noted. Behavior change commencing ...

=============
But the good thing is that I see it as a mini-tantrum attack.
=============

It's only a "good thing" for you, because you don't yet appreciate the passionate side of me (and no, I'm not going Brokeback Mountain on you here -- "I ... I ... I just wish I knew how to quit you, Michael!") ;-)

You see me as this guarded guy. A guy whose been too close to the sun -- and got his feathers burnt. No, he doesn't soar anymore. Instead, he burrows into a foxhole of reason and points his own searing view at the imperfections of others -- in the vain attempt to elate himself, by proving to himself that he is -- or at least once was -- better than the other ones are now. You know the ones, the ones who are busy living their lives?

He tries not to "feel" too much, because he's scared of emotions. He fears what others think -- so much so that he becomes a brooding sycophant, at the moment he thinks he's lost the respect or admiration of even an onlooker. He is a slave to the minds of others, they rule him, not him. He is a dis-integrated soul.

And he's not me (even if he looks that way to you, mkay?).

=============
Count to ten, remind yourself that your not 17, and in good faith ask me what you don�t understand. I will rise up to any logical argument though I apologize if I pepper them with an artistic temperament�I get bored by logic isolated from life.
=============

Thanks for the extension of respectful explanation and understanding, Michael (and especially so considering my rudeness). I was just a little hot under the collar that you -- one who has never been enthralled by a religion -- would declare unto the world that, even though you have no personal experience being enthralled by a religion, that you are able to see into the minds who have (basically: that you're a mind-reader -- and that you're just taking your time before applying for the Randi challenge).

I guess this question is now overdue:
Michael, how is it that you could know so much about the mental hurdles (or rather, unscalable psychological walls) of ex-religioso's? What are you basing that claim on?

Ed

Post 32

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:11pm

Mike E.,

I agree with your other points, but I've really got to call you on something. Look at this ironic string of statements of yours ...

=============
Suggestion: think, then write.

"Be clear here, I 'attacked' a behavior, not a person"

What, Hong is child now?
=============

Take your own advice, man. Geezus. You just dragged me over the coals for giving Hong's behavior (not her person) unfair and malicely-presumptive treatment. And in the next breath -- you do the same to me? You don't think that I don't know the difference between an adult and a friggen' child, do you, Mike? No, you don't think that at all, do you? So, what is the purpose of phrasing a rhetorical question like that to me then? Answer: Ad hominem.

And if you think otherwise, well then just imagine -- for one damned second -- an affirmative answer to your question ... [droopy eyes, tongue hanging out the side of my mouth, taking broad swipes at my own hair, hair that is in my eyes] Yeeaah. Ah' think dat Hong is really a child, not an aaaa-dult. Yup, it'all sounds right ta' meee. Hong'sa child alllright, and not an aaaa-dult. Dat's what she is.

Gimme' a break!

Ed

Post 33

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:28pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Hong,

==============

Ed,

Exactly what did I said qualifies as �ad hominem� attack?

==============

First, we must delineate what's special about ad hominem -- and then delineate which of the 3 types of ad hominems that was presented here.

==================

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy (see Validity below).

==================

So ... ad hominem can be described as getting off the argument, and onto the arguer. It's when you make it (an ideas discussion) personal. And the type of ad hominem present in this thread is ...

==================

Ad hominem tu quoque

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "against the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a person's claim is dismissed or concluded as false either because the claim is about actions the claimant or another individual has engaged in too, or because the claim is inconsistent with other claims that the person has made.
[same link]

==================

Hong, just let me know if I still haven't answered your question satisfactorily.

Ed

Post 34

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 5:04am

And I think Hong is wicked!
=============

And I think you're joking (or deluded). Hong is not half as wicked as you'd like to think she is, Michael. You're practicing selective omission -- taking what it is about her that invigorates you, and ignoring what doesn't.

Wick-ed
adj. wick-ed-er, wick-ed-est
1. Extremely clever: a wicked mind; a wicked point..
2. Effective or skillful: a wicked backhand.
3. Mischievous: a wicked amusement.
4. Morally just: a wicked truth.
5. Severe: a wicked scientist in a tight white plastic lab coat.

Source: The Last Word Newberry Dictionary

Michael

Post 35

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 5:45am

Michael, as usual, you're far too kind. In describing, Hong, "wicked" is somewhat of an understatement.

George

Post 36

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 6:12am

If you write something and put it up on the internet forum, it becomes fair game. Hong just said what was on many peoples minds. Here we have a man, Michael, writing about adults responsibilities to children, having also written that he abandonned his own. There is a contradiction in that. So she asked the question. Michael answered it. End of story.

Now, as to the undertone some have seen in Hongs questions, Hong once wrote re moral judgements they largely "reflected the pronouncer's character than whomever they tried to judge."

And this is an internet forum. The cute and cuddly, and the high and mighty are *all* fair game to be slapped around, questioned, ridiculed.

John

Post 37

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:25am

Well ... BRING IT ON THEN!!!

Ed
[beats chest, bares fangs, and all-around looks menacing]

Post 38

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:55am

OK, Ed,
Perhaps I am somewhat guilty of the charge here, but I hope my "attack" was not baseless. I also found that to understand where a person come from helps a great deal in understanding his/her real argument.

Post 39

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:46pm