Sentences with phrase «about ad hominem attacks»

So, having prior to this railed about JQ's arrogance, he then proceeds to lecture about ad hominem attacks, and the short lecture is an ad hominem argument suggesting that any arguments of a person who might have engaged in an ad hominem attack do not require further evaluation!

Stupid Monckton complains about ad hominem attacks.

However, if you are going to complain about ad hominem attacks by others, it seems that you could also find plenty in this thread that are directed at Dr. Meier and others supporting the consensus view.

Chad Well I guess you will have to take the whole day off from whining about ad hominem attacks since you started off with one against a group of people.

Not exact matches

These days they often include argumentum ad hominem attacks, such as sly references to the agencies» sterling ratings on Lehman Brothers the day before it filed for bankruptcy, that distract from relevant discussion about the country's creditworthiness.

When challenged about the deflection, claim an ad hominem attack.

One person says something that another doesn't agree with, so instead of having a mature conversation about it, they begin with ad hominem attacks.

The opinion was of a kind we are used to seeing by now from Justice Kennedy: long on windy rhetoric about «dignity» and ad hominem attacks on the basic human decency of the law's defenders, and short on actual coherent legal reasoning from recognizable constitutional principles.

What he did gives us was one long argumenturn ad hominem attacking all those who might have serious reservations about not only the war's morality but even its prudentiality from a standpoint of American self - interest.

What was it about how you disliked when people committed ad hominem attacks without substance?

«These ad hominem attacks from one side to the other, these rapid responses, are all about the politics of education.

But this morning, Jonathan Pelto came out with an ad hominem attack about us on his blog called «Can ConnCAN Con Conn» that claims to have uncovered some sort of hidden agenda.»

@proof2006: disqus I was really hoping that you were going to clarify something, instead of just going for ad hominem attacks about how I'm stupid for wanting a lot of storage on my phone.

Judith Curry wrote: «He voices concerns about the following threats to scientific integrity (see especially the last page): appealing to emotions; making personal (ad hominem) attacks; deliberately mischaracterizing an inconvenient argument; inappropriate generalization; misuse of facts and uncertainties; false appeal to authority; hidden value judgments; selectively leaving out inconvenient measurement results.»

Ad hominem attacks are always my favorite, as they reveal much about the attacker and nothing about the person being attacked or the point they're making.

I welcome substantive comments — by which I don't mean denunciations of «deniers» or «ecoNazis,» or lazy ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories about who's being paid off by whom.

I feel that ad hominem attacks are distasteful, and under this bracket I would put some of what is written here, Santer's comments and the silly bit about «social networking» in the Wegman report and a myriad of other ad - hominem attacks on sceptics blogs.

Leaving aside your gross ignorance about how modern science operates — e.g. the fact that it operates by consensus and peer review — your ad hominem remarks about how scientists deliberately distort the truth and suppress opposing research are nothing if not personal attacks.

[REPLY: Which only shows that you have no clue about the distinction between an illegitimate ad hominem attack on a person, and a legitimate intellectual attack on that persons ideas, motivations, and political agenda.

It was the supercilious, derogatory ad hominem attacks coming from many of those who worried about global warming which motivated me to look into the matter in much more detail.

«Everything that's awful about the Web right now: anonymous, drive - by, ad hominem attacks that can't be erased or edited and that live in search forever.»

The bulk of the critique veered off into a number of tangents and ad hominems having little to do with the documentary itself, such as discussing an article written several years earlier by Prof. Meier, attacking Lundy Bancroft, another expert on domestic violence who was shown in the film, and speculating about the author of briefly mentioned other research.]

The latter two are about specific issues, whereas the former is an ad hominem attack: It is an attack on your partner at the core.

The latter two are about specific issues, whereas the former is an ad hominem attack — it is an attack on your partner at the core.

The latter two are about specific issues, whereas the former is an ad hominem attack.