ad hominem

[John Harvey]

Sorry, Shannon, the confusion is my fault; this reference of mine to critics of homoeopathy slipped through from the discussion of such critics in the other post (under "ad hominem more". I particularly enjoyed the quote Sheri supplied because it is so applicable to much of the sniping at homoeopathy -- and its supporters -- that I've seen on so-called skeptics' blogs expressing their True Belief in the Doctrine of No Evidence. The entire piece and the resources I included links to in the other post) make great resources for anyone interested in articulately countering self-satisfied True Believer criticisms of homoeopathy supporters and their efforts.

Cheers!

John
2009/11/3 Shannon & Bob Nelson >

[Shannon Nelson]

Ah, so I *did* miss something!
Thanks, that makes sense...

[John Harvey]

Oh, good; again, though, not your fault; I mentally brought the context of the other post with me, without telling you.

John
2009/11/3 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."

— Plutarch

[Sheri Nakken]

you accused me of ad hominem attacks
It was for your benefit
Sheri
At 01:58 PM 11/2/2009, you wrote:
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start October 28 & 29

[Sheri Nakken]

Here is the original 2 posts that I made, combined after your accusation towards me

here is something a colleague found on Google

"One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm . As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed."

"Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument"
At 01:58 PM 11/2/2009, you wrote:
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start October 28 & 29

[Shannon Nelson]

Sheri, I don't remember whether my "accusation" was specifically directed at you--if it was, please be assured you were only one of several. As you know, the subject of personal attacks--against against the *person*, as opposed to discussion on ideas, which I apparently incorrectly referred to as an "ad hominem" attack (doesn't "ad hominem" literally mean "against the man"???) is one I go on about periodically. John's post was unrelated (so far as I could see) to the prior posts (I had missed some!), and was unrelated to either of the two you repeat below.

I do not believe either of the two below has anything to do with my remarks either, tho. I don't recall attacking you or anyone, tho i do recall asking that we stick to *subjects*, not personal attacks against Andrew Weil (the latest "victim"). Sorry if that felt like an attack!

If you still feel i need to be convinced of the error of my ways, please let's continue this privately, as I'm not going to respond to the topic any further on the list.

Thanks,
Shannon

[Sheri Nakken]

the discussion was about well documented (in the email too)
information on Andrew Weil's pushing and approval of vaccines.
I did not attack his clothing, his appearance, his family. I did not
attack him.

I specifically pointed out well documented stands taken by him pro vaccine.

To refresh your memory - review your first email of 10/28/2009 in
response to my original email
Sheri
At 06:27 AM 11/3/2009, you wrote: