Originally posted by robbie carrobieAd hominem much?
Your opinions have no meaning for me for they are relevant to no one but you. Its a pity
you feel embittered and prefer to post statements taken out of context from
disgruntled ex witnesses which you have not read. This is incontrovertible proof of
your prejudice and unless you rid yourself of it, it is not I who is being controlled but
you ...[text shortened]... ll you this truly,
you dont need to believe me but i say it nor for my benefit, but for yours.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. It's calling you out, robbie. This is textbook ad hominem:
Is your assertion of Ad hominem not an Ad hominem?
Your opinions have no meaning for me for they are relevant to no one but you. Its a pity you feel embittered and prefer to post statements taken out of context from disgruntled ex witnesses which you have not read. This is incontrovertible proof of your prejudice and unless you rid yourself of it, it is not I who is being controlled but you, for you seem willing to believe just about anything that fuels your prejudice, even articles quoted out of context that you have not read. Look how it has made you hateful when i feel no animosity at all, look at your negativity when i am naught but positive, look how it makes you unhappy when I am gleeful and happy to share my understanding. Its poisonous and will do you no good whatsoever, I tell you this truly,
you dont need to believe me but i say it nor for my benefit, but for yours.
Divegeester has offered a critique of your organisation and this post above by you is a personal attack on divegeester - i.e. an ad hominem.
3 edits
Originally posted by FMnot so FMF, I provided reason why i suspect that he is being controlled, namely that
o. It's calling you out, robbie. This is textbookad hominem
Your opinions have no meaning for me for they are relevant to no one but you. Its a pity you feel embittered and prefer to post statements taken out of context from disgruntled ex witnesses which you have not read. This is incontrovertible proof of your prejudice and unless you rid yours ion and this post above by you is a personal attack on divegeester - i.e. and hominem[
he posted an article, quoted in part, out of context. This is turn led to a prejudiced
disposition, for he did not take the time to read the entire article as was also
demonstrated. The result was that he was being controlled and prejudiced.
Secondly that because of this it had made him unhappy through association, this
was clear because on not one occasion can i find a positive statement uttered by
him. Thirdly it was clear that the source of the material was posted by disgruntled
individuals and that through association with them, he was likely to become
embittered himself. So your assertion of Ad hominem is an abuse of the term,
because every one of the assertions i made can be justified. Your opinions have no
real relevance to anyone but yourself for they are a product of your own mind,
again a justifiable statement as this real Ad hominem of yours is proving.
3 edits
Divegeester has offered a critique of your organisation and this post above by you is a
personal attack on divegeester
no divesgeester offered a critique of our organisation on the basis of a quotation taken
at face value, out of context, which misrepresented our position, without actually
having read the article itself to determine what our real position was.
You have no case FMF, none at all, infact i suspect that if I had done this, i would have
been lambasted.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK, so you don't believe it's an ad hominem. To me I see it as a personal attack on divegeester and not in any way a refutation of the critique of your organisation that he has offered. I suspect you have made this personal attack on him because I believe any objective review of the back and forth of posts on this thread would not find that your defence of the Watchtower article you yourself cited on page 11 has been convincing, in the least. I reckon you know this too, and hence the post about divegeester - touch upon such things as his emotional state, his mental health, his integrity, his honesty - which fits the conventional definition of ad hominem.
not so FMF, I provided reason why i suspect that he is being controlled, namely that
he posted an article, quoted in part, out of context. This is turn led to a prejudiced
disposition, for he did not take the time to read the entire article as was also
demonstrated. The result was that he was being controlled and prejudiced.
Secondly that ...[text shortened]... t of your own mind,
again a justifiable statement as this real Ad hominem of yours is proving.
Originally posted by FMFI have provided reasons FMF, you may make reference to those.
OK, so you don't believe it's an ad hominem. To me I see it as a personal attack on divegeester and not in any way a refutation of the critique of your organisation that he has offered. I suspect you have made this personal attack on him because I believe any objective review of the back and forth of posts on this thread would not find that your defence o ...[text shortened]... lth, his integrity, his honesty - which fits the conventional definition of ad hominem.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell then, refute the critique of your organisation. The way divegeester raised the issue - which, having seen the the full article on page 11, I contend it is still an issue, and divegeester's critique is still valid - does not justify your ad hominem on the previous page.
...divesgeester offered a critique of our organisation on the basis of a quotation taken at face value, out of context, which misrepresented our position, without actually having read the article itself to determine what our real position was.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo abandon any semblance of tackling the critique of your organisation head on and instead attack divegeester on a deeply personal level with comments about such things as his emotional state, his mental health, his integrity, his honesty, is a gratuitous ad hominem. None of your "reasons" for doing it can change this.
I have provided reasons FMF, you may make reference to those.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOn the contrary he did not provide a critique, he provided a partial quotation, taken at
To abandon any semblance of tackling the critique of your organisation head on and instead attack divegeester on a deeply personal level with comments about such things as his emotional state, his mental health, his integrity, his honesty, is a gratuitous ad hominem. None of your "reasons" for doing it can change this.
face value, without having read the entire article, taken out of context, lifted from a
third party site, frequented by disgruntled ex witnesses. Clearly he was subject to both
control and prejudice, clearly he failed to utter anything positive and still cannot bring
himself to do so, clearly he is embittered. These are incontrovertible facts FMF and to
attempt to defend such a position, after knowing the facts is unreasonable. Its not an
ad hominem in the truest sense if the reasons are justified, relevant to the issue and
substantiated, is it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNone of these "reasons" you are offering justify the gratuitous ad hominem you launched against divegeester on the page previous to this one. Disagree with him by all means about the value and meaning of the Watchtower article he drew our attention to, and which is quoted in full in page 11, but the personal attack on him is out of order. Just saying.
On the contrary he did not provide a critique, he provided a partial quotation, taken at
face value, without having read the entire article, taken out of context, lifted from a
third party site, frequented by disgruntled ex witnesses. Clearly he was subject to both
control and prejudice, clearly he failed to utter anything positive and still ca ...[text shortened]... e facts FMF and to
attempt to defend such a position, after knowing the facts is unreasonable.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFjust saying that all the statements i made were relevant to the discussion, not ad
None of these "reasons" you are offering justify the gratuitous ad hominem you launched against divegeester on the page previous to this one. Disagree with him by all means about the value and meaning of the Watchtower article he drew our attention to, and which is quoted in full in page 11, but the personal attack on him is out of order. Just saying.
hominem in the truest sense, for they were all and remain relevant, just saying. No it
was not out of order, it was made with the best of intentions, I want him to be happy, i
dont want him to feed his mind on negativity all the time, it will make him unhappy.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo? In the meantime the whole article has been quoted and the critique of your organization still stands. divegeester drew our attention to the article on page 9 and the entire article was presented on page 11. There has been a whole load of discussion since then and in light of the full article. Why are you launching an ad hominem at him on page 21?
[divegeester] provided a partial quotation, taken at face value, without having read the entire article, taken out of context, lifted from a third party site, frequented by disgruntled ex witnesses.