Palmer from Two Items on Joseph Smith and Early

[_Buffalo]

the substance of the reviews.

lol

[_Daniel Peterson]

the substance of the reviews.

This sort of response illustrates why, on the whole, I don't take Buffalo seriously.

And yes, Themis, you were too harsh. But it was the specific character of your reaction -- no substance! -- that was revelatory, just as it's revealing with respect to Buffalo.

And I still think it remarkably weak and lame to claim that Palmer is an "insider" with regard to the historiography of Mormonism simply because he's a member of the Church.

After all, his book is expressly constructed, as he explains, to let other members of the Church in on the real truth about its origin-stories -- truth that has not previously been conveyed to them. They are, clearly, in his mind, "outsiders" who need to be told the real facts.

[_Buffalo]

This sort of response illustrates why, on the whole, I don't take Buffalo seriously.

I admit to having not read all six (!) "reviews", but the substance of the arguments posited in "A One-sided View of Mormon Origins" seem to boil down to "nuh uh!"

By the way, why six reviews? Seems unprecedented.

[Guest]

And yes, Themis, you were too harsh. But it was the specific character of your reaction -- no substance! -- that was revelatory, just as it's revealing with respect to Buffalo.

I doubt you know me well enough to make that assertion, but oh well.

And I still think it remarkably weak and lame to claim that Palmer is an "insider" with regard to the historiography of Mormonism simply because he's a member of the Church.

He is more an insider then you, and yes his qualification clearly make the use of insider appropriate. You just don't like what he says, not that I agree with it all, and attack him on this to divert from the message.

After all, his book is expressly constructed, as he explains, to let other members of the Church in on the real truth about its origin-stories -- truth that has not previously been conveyed to them. They are, clearly, in his mind, "outsiders" who need to be told the real facts

He would be correct. These facts are not something anyone is going to get over night, and yes there are plenty that the average member knows little to nothing about. Again I am not saying evrything he says is accurate.

[_mikwut]

Hi Buffalo,

My main concern with FARMS is their unprofessional writing style. It should be embarrassing to any faithful Saint who is being represented in this way.

I only brought up the ad homs against Palmer to show that it does happen. I don't know how frequently.

But it wasn't an ad hom. I think that is clear and your being stubborn now. But you can carry on I won't persist further regarding such a basic fact. If the "unprofessional writing style" is your real concern it remains trivial, subjective and a red herring to the substance found in the FARMS articles.

As side note, you said to Pahoran:

4) Now that you understand ad hominem means "to the man," hopefully you can make the connection that an attack of someone's writing style is not an ad hominem attack. I'm confident that you can make this connection, despite your obvious mental limitations (see, that was an ad hominem)

No it wasn't! That was just a personal insult and nothing more. Pahoran was stating to you that if your response to the substance of the arguments found in the FARMS articles is dismissal based on unprofessional writing style - that is closer to classic ad hom. because it isn't merely insulting but is presented as a response to the substance of the articles.

You don't have to respond, its circles now.

my best, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

Hi Buffalo,

My main concern with FARMS is their unprofessional writing style. It should be embarrassing to any faithful Saint who is being represented in this way.

I only brought up the ad homs against Palmer to show that it does happen. I don't know how frequently.

But it wasn't an ad hom. I think that is clear and your being stubborn now. But you can carry on I won't persist further regarding such a basic fact. If the "unprofessional writing style" is your real concern it remains trivial, subjective and a red herring to the substance found in the FARMS articles.

As side note, you said to Pahoran:

4) Now that you understand ad hominem means "to the man," hopefully you can make the connection that an attack of someone's writing style is not an ad hominem attack. I'm confident that you can make this connection, despite your obvious mental limitations (see, that was an ad hominem)

No it wasn't! That was just a personal insult and nothing more. Pahoran was stating to you that if your response to the substance of the arguments found in the FARMS articles is dismissal based on unprofessional writing style - that is closer to classic ad hom. because it isn't merely insulting but is presented as a response to the substance of the articles.

You don't have to respond, its circles now.

my best, mikwut

If critiquing someone's writing style is "close" to an ad hom, I guess English teachers across the nation are guilty as well. Seems like a ridiculous proposition to me.

You have yet to show how the reviews were NOT ad homs - they were most certainly attacking the man in an attempt to discredit him. It doesn't get more ad hom than that.

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

If critiquing someone's writing style is "close" to an ad hom, I guess English teachers across the nation are guilty as well. Seems like a ridiculous proposition to me.

If that is all you were doing your correct. I inferred from your posts that you were dismissing them and only giving that as a reason for doing so. That is what it seemed to me you were doing. That would be ad hom.

You have yet to show how the reviews were NOT ad homs - they were most certainly attacking the man in an attempt to discredit him. It doesn't get more ad hom than that.

Again, simply discrediting someone's writing, even if based on the character, intentions, etc. of the writer is not the primary defining factor for ad hom. Rather, the primary issue is is discrediting someone relevant to the arguments they (the writer) were purporting or is it simply discrediting for its own sake and has nothing to do with the arguments. I think this thread by more than just myself has clearly shown the relevant reasons and needs for the discrediting arguments - they are germane and relevant therefore not ad hom. fallacies.

I think if you stop thinking of the ad hom as just an insult it will help you distinguish. Someone can be insulting and gain the benefit of both the insult and the argument if they keep it relevant and germane to issues being argued for. Ad hom is fallacy - not a compassionate or humanitarian prudential concern. You don't seem to distinguish that.

regards, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo,

If critiquing someone's writing style is "close" to an ad hom, I guess English teachers across the nation are guilty as well. Seems like a ridiculous proposition to me.

If that is all you were doing your correct. I inferred from your posts that you were dismissing them and only giving that as a reason for doing so. That is what it seemed to me you were doing. That would be ad hom.

You have yet to show how the reviews were NOT ad homs - they were most certainly attacking the man in an attempt to discredit him. It doesn't get more ad hom than that.

Again, simply discrediting someone's writing, even if based on the character, intentions, etc. of the writer is not the primary defining factor for ad hom. Rather, the primary issue is is discrediting someone relevant to the arguments they (the writer) were purporting or is it simply discrediting for its own sake and has nothing to do with the arguments. I think this thread by more than just myself has clearly shown the relevant reasons and needs for the discrediting arguments - they are germane and relevant therefore not ad hom. fallacies.

I think if you stop thinking of the ad hom as just an insult it will help you distinguish. Someone can be insulting and gain the benefit of both the insult and the argument if they keep it relevant and germane to issues being argued for. Ad hom is fallacy - not a compassionate or humanitarian prudential concern. You don't seem to distinguish that.

regards, mikwut

They are absolutely not germane as the criticism were regarding Palmer's honesty and sincerity, not whether or not he is an "insider."

Even dismissing them based on poor writing is not even remotely in the realm of an ad hom attack. Again:

"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

They are absolutely not germane as the criticism were regarding Palmer's honesty and sincerity, not whether or not he is an "insider."

They go to his credibility as both an insider and his credentials. That is germane and relevant. Is it more concerning to you that this isn't decisive of everything in his book? Because it isn't. The case for or against Mormonism is cumulative so the question here is can it contribute positively to a larger cumulative case for Mormonism or against Mormonism. It does in this case of defending Mormonism from the criticisms and credibility of those criticisms.
You should concede the point it is minor.

Then you agree with me but don't know it:

Even dismissing them based on poor writing is not even remotely in the realm of an ad hom attack. Again:

"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

The bolded part is what I have been pointing out to you.

regards, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo,


They go to his credibility as both an insider and his credentials. That is germane and relevant. Is it more concerning to you that this isn't decisive of everything in his book? Because it isn't. The case for or against Mormonism is cumulative so the question here is can it contribute positively to a larger cumulative case for Mormonism or against Mormonism. It does in this case of defending Mormonism from the criticisms and credibility of those criticisms.
You should concede the point it is minor.

No, they don't. An insider is someone with inside knowledge. Period. Someone who disagrees with the policies of a company but stays on is just as much an insider as someone who doesn't disagree and stays on.

Then you agree with me but don't know it:

Even dismissing them based on poor writing is not even remotely in the realm of an ad hom attack. Again:

"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

The bolded part is what I have been pointing out to you.

regards, mikwut

There ARE legitimate uses of ad hom, but that isn't what you've been saying - you've been saying it isn't an ad hom at all.

I would contend that MI's defensive-sounding hit pieces do not constitute legitimate use of ad hom, for the reasons above.

By the way, their criticism of his honesty/integrity are well off the mark too. Palmer was upfront with his supervisor about his feelings all the way through.