John Perna Defends Ad Hominems

John Knight:

Thank you you taking the time to create an entire web page that is just about me.

My very own web page!

Such flattery!

I had no idea that my efforts had been so effective and worth while.

I now challenge you to post this response there also, along with all of the things that are quoted out of context.

Most of what you have highlighted is not an ad hominem at all, because it TRULY makes no attempt to shift the discussion from the issue to the person.

Yes I DID raise a few honest questions about motive, because I actually am interested in the answers, but I never tried to change the discussion from the issue to the person. There truly ARE people who need help, but there is no doubt that a psychiatrist would made the same comment in more professional terms.

Most of what you have highlighted is duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems. Most people will make a FEW unintentional ad hominems. With careful study I admit that I DID MAKE A FEW. The last person, who was able to be subjected to contiuous insults and ad hominems, without ever responding, wound up getting got crucified by anti-semites. ARE YOU ALSO MAKING AN EFFORT TO LIMIT YOUR ERRORS TO "A FEW", UNINTENTIONALLY MADE, AD HOMINEMS? Or is the ad hominem your PRIMARY RESPONSE STRATEGY? People can judge this for themselves.

Much of what you have highlighted is not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept.

Much of what you have highlighted relates to a general concept of error and does not even specify who it is that has made, or is making, this error. When you throw a rock into a pen full of pigs, the one that squeals is the one that you hit.YOU are the one that says that the "shoe fits".

Much of what you have highlighted relates to a questioning of the credibility of a concept. In some cases I questioned these concepts in terms which included pronouns, causing the question to be personal. This IS very close to being an ad hominem, and in a FEW cases it WAS an ad hominem. Where it WAS an ad hominem, it was unintentional, but I will apologize for it never the less. I must ask you:

Comments on your webpage:

You revise every historical fact to make it match your predetermined conlcusion.
You turn everyone, that is bad, into a Jew.
Then you turn every Jew that the Bible clearly shows as good, into a Non-Jew.
1) I cannot imagine that you actually believe the things that you are saying.

duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems.

relates to a questioning of the credibility of a concept. I questioned this concept in terms which included pronouns, causing the question to be personal. It is not an ad hominem, but I will apologize for it never the less.

2) It is as if you just dropped in from another planet, or got loose from a funny farm..

A true ad hominem. I apologize. A psychiatrist would made the same comment in more professional terms.

duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems.

3) How did you get like that?

duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems.

4) Rolling on the floor and laughing my a** off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

relates to a questioning of the credibility of a concept. not an attack on a person at all,

5) Are you ACTUALLY trying to convince people that Mao Tse Tung was a Jew?????

not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept..

I think that one tops the claim that no one, who is mentioned in the Bible, is a Jew.

6) Do you actually BELIEVE that?

relates to a questioning of the credibility of a concept. not an attack on a person at all,

duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems.

7) Or did you make a bet that you could convince someone of it?

duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems.

This IS very close to being an ad hominem, I will apologize for it never the less.

This is a honest question, because I actually am interested in the answer. It is not an attempt to change the discussion from the issue to the person.

8) Is someone paying you to do this? duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems. This IS very close to being an ad hominem, I will apologize for it never the less. This is a honest question, because I actually am interested in the answer. It is not an attempt to change the discussion from the issue to the person. I was asked the same question, and I answered it. 9) Is it impossible to admit that there are good people and bad people from among every ethnic group? not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. We do not say that Christ was the King of the Jews. The Bible does. 10) I am starting to realize that it is pointless to try to reason with you. This is an agreement with what you guys have told me over and over again. It is also a communication concerning a need to adjourn the debate. duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems (27) Anyone who says the Jesus, and the disciples. were not Jews, but that Mao Tse Dung WAS a Jew, is clearly (11) not playing with a full deck A true ad hominem. I apologize. A psychiatrist would made the same comment in more professional terms. You revise every historical fact to make it match (12) your predetermined conlcusion. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. You turn everyone, that is bad, into a Jew. Then you turn every Jew that the Bible clearly shows as good, into a Non-Jew. 13) I cannot imagine that you actually believe the things that you are saying. relates to a questioning of the credibility of a concept. not an attack on a person at all, 14) Is someone paying you to do this? duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems. (8) This IS very close to being an ad hominem, I will apologize for it never the less. This is a honest question, because I actually am interested in the answer. It is not an attempt to change the discussion from the issue to the person. I was asked the same question, and I answered it. 15) Are you trying to win a bet? duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems 16) Do you "get off" on convincing people to believe UTTER NONSENSE? duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems 17) It is as if you just dropped in from another planet, or got loose from a funny farm.. duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems A psychiatrist would made the same comment in more professional terms. 18) How did you get like that? duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems 19) There is definately a screw loose somewhere. relates to a general concept of error and does not even specify who it is that has made, or is making, this error. When you throw a rock into a pen full of pigs, the one the squeals is the one that you hit. YOU are the one the says that the shoe fits. A psychiatrist would made the same comment in more professional terms. The inscriptions say that Christ was King of the Jews, and there are hundreds of other verses that refer to Christ as a Jew 20) BUT that does not fit your predetermined conclusion; not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. so you cannot see it, even when you post it yourself 21) GET HELP. A true ad hominem. I apologize. A psychiatrist would made the same comment in more professional terms. 22) DO NOT TRY TO TWIST THE BIBLE. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. 23) God will punish you. Deals with a concept, and should NOT have included a personal pronoun. I SHOULD HAVE SAID: God will punish those who TWIST THE BIBLE. This comes close to being an ad hominem, but strictly, it is not. Never the less, I apologize. 24) > I am not going to keep posting the same things over and over. . > The Bible says the Jesus was a Jew in a few hundred different places. > THE Verses are below. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept 25) > CASE CLOSED. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. 26) If I hear anymore of this nonsense I will stop participating. This is also a communication concerning a need to adjourn the debate. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. 27) I am starting to realize that it is pointless to try to reason with you. Anyone who says that Jesus, and the disciples. were not Jews, but that Mao Tse Dung WAS a Jew, is This is an agreement with what you guys have told me over and over again. It is also a communication concerning a need to adjourn the debate. duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems (10) (28) clearly not playing with a full deck duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems 29) You revise every historical fact to make it match your predetermined conlcusion. duplicated over and over again to try to contrive a large number of ad hominems not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. You turn everyone, that is bad, into a Jew. Then you turn every Jew that the Bible clearly shows as good, into a Non-Jew. 30) I cannot imagine that you actually believe the things that you are saying duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems. . 31) Is someone paying you to do this? duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems. 32) Are you trying to win a bet? duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems. 34) Do you "get off" on convincing people to believe UTTER NONSENSE? duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems. 35) It is as if you just dropped in from another planet, or got loose from a funny farm.. duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems. 36) How did you get like that? duplicated over and over again to try to contrive such a large number of ad hominems. A psychiatrist would made the same comment in more professional terms. 37) I cannot imagine how you can think that portraying this whole thing as a Jewish Conspiracy is anything except an over simplification. I am not denying that not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. the conspiracy has plenty of Atheists who are descendants of Abraham. The BIBLE BELIEVING Jew is more likely to be their victims than you are. (38) Portraying this whole thing as a Jewish Conspiracy is an error that shifts blame away from MANY people who are guilty, and shifts blame toward MANY other people, who are as patriotic as you. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. 39) If you are a Christian, your God is a Jew. Learn to deal with that! not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. 40) At the same time, I cannot comprehend how anyone could look at murderers, like Yasser Arafat and Quaddaffi as any kind of a force for good. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. 41) I do not expect that any of this will make any difference to you. The problem is, that in order to have credibility you have to be CONSISTENTLY right. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. An honest communication. (42) Slanting everything so that it always comes up Jewish, just discredits the rest of your information. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. (43) If there is one fly's turd in the sugar bowl most people will throw out the whole bowl of sugar. Then there are a few people who have developed an appetite for that sort of thing. relates to a general concept of error and does not even specify who it is that has made, or is making, this error. When you throw a rock into a pen full of pigs, the one that squeals is the one that you hit.YOU are the one the says that this shoe fits 44) I am going to get back to the job of opposing totalitarianism now. not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. 45) Utter RUBBISH! It is against to Jewish religion to consume blood of ANY kind. (IT IS NOT "KOSHER") The book of Leviticus is where these laws are found not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a concept. 46) I do not think that I will be sending money to Willie not an attack on a person at all, but deals with a fact. 47) Yes there are phonies who try to turn Jesus's message of love into hatred. relates to a general concept of error and does not even specify who it is that has made, or is making, this error. When you throw a rock into a pen full of pigs, the one that squeals is the one that you hit.YOU are the one the says that this shoe fits

----- Original Message -----

From: Christian Party

To: repeal19th@egroups.com ; ccnn ccnn ; cinds cinds ; The Grip (E) ; repeal19th@topica.com ; KORESHX98@egroups.com ; demand@egroups.com ; ChristianPatriot ; christianidentity@egroups.com ; Christian Nationalist ; theseries ; SonsofLiberty@egroups.com

Cc: Franklin Wayne Poley

Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 7:14 PM

Subject: [repeal19th] Ad Hominem

John,

Do you ever take your own advice, or is that only for your opponents in this crucial debate? Please review the following again

adhominem.htm

Now you say:

"It is abominable to be reduced COMPLETELY to nothing more than attacking the messenger."

We agree with you completely. You have been attacking Willie Martin mercilessly, not just his message. Nobody has come close to insulting you like you have been insulting him and a number of other posters, and now you must stop because we also agree:

A person who repeatly resorts to Ad Hominems is subjecting himself to FAR GREATER embarrassment than it would have been to simply admit that he has lost the debate.