The WreckIgnitions Read: Up Yours, too....

[Mark Kohut]

Or, one might say....the ad hominem argument here is really begging the question 
(in the real meaning of that phrase).

Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
	* History| 
	* Definition| 
	* Example| 
	* Related fallacies

Or, no real argument at all is about what you'd expect from insurance companies 
and Christian courts of law....now That's what
I'd call Pynchonian but it is Gaddisian....... 




________________________________
From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
To: Erik T. Burns <eburns at gmail.com>
Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 4:01:33 PM
Subject: Re: The WreckIgnitions Read: Up Yours, too....


So the joke sorta is.....'this act is an act of God because only God could do 
it"....no other explanations could even be considered since if we could
consider them, it would mean the disasster were not overwhelmingly disasterous? 

Sorta like the Ontological Argument for God in secular reversal garb.......i.e. 
this argument assumes its answer, say the refuters
as the ad hominem on disasters assumes its assumptions in its definition?.....

Again, sorta a logician's Catch-22?....




________________________________
From: Erik T. Burns <eburns at gmail.com>
To: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 3:24:08 PM
Subject: Re: The WreckIgnitions Read: Up Yours, too....


i think it's classic ad hom, not tu quoque: An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), 
short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise 
to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

i.e. that only God could be the cause of "disasters of such scope and fortuitous 
originality"


On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:

p. 4.."disasters of such scope and fortuitous originality which Christian courts
>of law and insurance companies,
>humbly arguing ad hominem, define as acts of God.
>
>Since I should know 'ad hominem' like any other memory, this struck me as a
>brilliant logic joke which I
>
>would explicate thus.................
>
>Then I wasn't sure what to say. Anyone, anyone, Bueller?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem_Tu_Quoque
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20110406/9b44878a/attachment.html>