Chumly wrote:Addendum to Post: 3212819: the initial worm can opening belongs to Cyracuz when he wrote
Cyracuz wrote:Whyyyy is insanity disguised as religion allowed to flourish?
as such I'm following suite, thus some of your text is misdirected.
Further as per Post: 3212466 in which I present my challenge to you, you have not demonstrated your claim that I lack understanding of either moral relativism or social contract. As such, I consider your Post: 3212358 to contain a goodly admixture of both a lack of understanding of my Post: 3212251 in the apropos context given, and the equivalent of an ad hominem logical fallacy.
There was no ad hominem fallacy, because at no time did i assert that your argument is flawed because your character, appearance, mannerisms, etc. are flawed. This is an all too typical argument on your part, to claim that those who disagree with you have insulted you, and that therefore they are guilty of an ad hominem fallacy.
Allow me to supply that deficiency, however, and derive from your latest response the implication that your understanding is deficient:
Chumly wrote:After all, moral relativism indicates there may be no absolute standards of correct behavior.
So far, so good . . . however, from there you proceed to this:
Chumly wrote:Furthermore there is no identified express purpose to man's existence with which to base a set of rational expectations.
This is an unsupported premise on your part. It may be true, but you have not established that upon any evidentiary or logical basis--and it is not implicit in the definition of moral relativism with which you replied when i pointed out that you had provided a fuzzy idea of moral relativism.
Now, had you simply proceeded to argue from a definition of moral relativism which were plausible, and for which you could provide a source, you'd have been on sound logical ground (sort of).
However, you next write this:
Quote:Thus your above question presupposes an identified express purpose to man's existence with which to base a set of rational expectations!
Since you've opened this can of worms by begging the question, you are now faced with the responsibility of answering it.........have fun!
The errors here are multiple. You have quoted Cyracuz writing: "Whyyyy is insanity disguised as religion allowed to flourish?" In the first place, nothing in this supposes or implies that there is any identified express purpose to man's existence. Then you make a claim about moral relativism. Then you add an unsupported premise to that, and you proceed from that to assert that Cyracuz' remark is unfounded. You don't claim that it is unfounded based on a definition of moral relativism, rather, you claim that it is unfounded based on your unfounded premise with regard to whether or not there is an identified express purpose to man's existence. It is a stretch to assert that Cyracuz falls afoul of moral relativism based on the sentence you quoted. That sentence does not establish whether or not Cyracuz thinks that "insanity disguised as religion" is a bad or a good thing. I say it is a stretch because one can reasonably infer from the whole of Cyracuz' remarks that he thinks this is bad thing, even if it is not express in what he wrote.
Had you simply relied upon a plausible definition of moral relatism, you'd have a had a (more or less) logical basis to deny his premise. But you were not content to take that simple and reasonable path--you had to throw in your own unsupported premise, and accuse Cyracuz of begging the question, when relying upon your unsupported premise to make the charge is itself an example of begging the question.
So, in pointing that out, i indulged in no
argumentum ad hominem. I did not claim that you are wrong because you are stupid, or ugly, or don't practice good hygiene. I said that you were yourself guilty of begging a question because you made your claim based on an unsupported premise. The whine that one has been personally attacked just because one has been disagreed with is one of the feeblest responses in a rhetorical exchange, if you can't point to a specific example of someone denying your premise based upon your personal characteristics. I had not done that, i had torn apart what passed for logic in your attempt to present an argument.
However, now i will be happy to insult you and point out that when it comes to a logical argument, you usually fail completely to supply one, to the extent that one begins to believe you are incapable of supplying one.
Nevertheless, none of what i have written to deny your claim against Cyracuz constitutes
argumentum ad hominem--i have laid out clearly the reasons why your remark was flawed. I argued against your argument, not against your person.
But i don't want to disappoint you. A pathetic performance all around. You're not very good at this sort of thing.
From this source, the definition of argumentum ad hominem:
Quote:Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
Therefore, in attacking the logical basis of your claim against Cyracuz, i indulged no "ad hominem." That is one of the most common whines online, and almost always proceeds from those who have no logical basis from which to defend their position.
