You wrote, "people like you ... would never use a male pronoun if
talking about nurses", written by you, is already ad hominem;
it's a direct accusation of hypocrisy, rather than focusing on the
argument content.
If you can't handle the ad-hominem ball returned to your court,
don't serve it!
In article <[email protected]>,
Kaz Kylheku <[email protected]> wrote:
...
You wrote, "people like you ... would never use a male pronoun if
talking about nurses", written by you, is already ad hominem;
it's a direct accusation of hypocrisy, rather than focusing on the
argument content.
If you can't handle the ad-hominem ball returned to your court,
don't serve it!
We'd all be better off if nobody ever used the phrase 'ad hominem' ever
again on Usenet.
This also goes for the rest of those fancy Latin phrases that people use to argue about arguing.
On 08.04.2024 21:44, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Kaz Kylheku <[email protected]> wrote:
...
You wrote, "people like you ... would never use a male pronoun if
talking about nurses", written by you, is already ad hominem;
it's a direct accusation of hypocrisy, rather than focusing on the
argument content.
If you can't handle the ad-hominem ball returned to your court,
don't serve it!
We'd all be better off if nobody ever used the phrase 'ad hominem' ever
again on Usenet.
This also goes for the rest of those fancy Latin phrases that people use to >> argue about arguing.
Id est, exempli gratia, focussing on the argument per se, as
Kaz sensibly suggested. :-)
(It's good that in English most of the Latin is hidden behind
abbreviations like i.e. and e.g.; but there's no abbreviation
for "per se"? Probably because p.s. is already occupied?)
Janis
PS: Of course I disagree for the "banning phrases" suggestion.
Pointing out (in whatever way) to stay on the argument is fine.
On 08.04.2024 21:44, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Kaz Kylheku <[email protected]> wrote:
...
You wrote, "people like you ... would never use a male pronoun if
talking about nurses", written by you, is already ad hominem;
it's a direct accusation of hypocrisy, rather than focusing on the
argument content.
If you can't handle the ad-hominem ball returned to your court,
don't serve it!
We'd all be better off if nobody ever used the phrase 'ad hominem' ever
again on Usenet.
This also goes for the rest of those fancy Latin phrases that people use to >> argue about arguing.
Id est, exempli gratia, focussing on the argument per se, as
Kaz sensibly suggested. :-)
(It's good that in English most of the Latin is hidden behind
abbreviations like i.e. and e.g.; but there's no abbreviation
for "per se"? Probably because p.s. is already occupied?)
Janis
PS: Of course I disagree for the "banning phrases" suggestion.
Pointing out (in whatever way) to stay on the argument is fine.
Janis Papanagnou <[email protected]> wrote at 07:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
Id est, exempli gratia, focussing on the argument per se, as
Kaz sensibly suggested. :-)
(It's good that in English most of the Latin is hidden behind
abbreviations like i.e. and e.g.; but there's no abbreviation
for "per se"? Probably because p.s. is already occupied?)
I think it might be because per se is so short.
On 09.04.2024 17:30, candycanearter07 wrote:
Janis Papanagnou <[email protected]> wrote at 07:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
Id est, exempli gratia, focussing on the argument per se, as
Kaz sensibly suggested. :-)
(It's good that in English most of the Latin is hidden behind
abbreviations like i.e. and e.g.; but there's no abbreviation
for "per se"? Probably because p.s. is already occupied?)
I think it might be because per se is so short.
Not shorter than "id est". ;-)
Janis
On 09.04.2024 17:30, candycanearter07 wrote:
I think it might be because per se is so short.
Not shorter than "id est". ;-)
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 21:48:35 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 09.04.2024 17:30, candycanearter07 wrote:
I think it might be because per se is so short.
Not shorter than "id est". ;-)
“Viz.” is apparently short for “videlicet”.
Go figure.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 21:48:35 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 09.04.2024 17:30, candycanearter07 wrote:
I think it might be because per se is so short.
Not shorter than "id est". ;-)
“Viz.” is apparently short for “videlicet”.
Go figure.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 18:58:50 |
| Calls: | 12,103 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,087 |