Thanks for all the extra info, but my question was intended to relate specifically to your reference to the term "consistent" and courses "in logic".
Dangerousman wrote:Insofar as it relates to Zimmerman or a similar case, a discussion of consistency isn't so much about the abstract technical use of the term in logic but about the practical implications.
Curious, then, that when we had an earlier discussion about my use of the term ad hominem
, you insisted that its use was inappropriate because you hadn't committed the fallacy as it is defined for "abstract technical use", rather than in the "practical" way that I clearly explained.
Henry, you must be an inspiration to those who aspire to going through life completely clueless.
jman111 wrote:Seems to me there actually was an intended implication regarding the validity of Hank's statement in your ad hominem? Perhaps you were implicitly asserting a conclusion, no?
Dangerousman wrote:I majored in philosophy as both an undergrad and graduate student. An ad hominem argument is certainly invalid as a means of attacking the truth of someone's assertions. An example: Henry is stupid. Therefore, what Henry said is not true.
That's not my argument in the earlier post. I am merely asserting the premise, not the conclusion. Insofar as it is "ad hominen" it is logically valid (and sound.)
It sure seems to me as if you are holding another (specifically, me) to a different, higher standard. Perhaps you, or others, don't see it that way. If so, I'd like to hear why.