Sentences with phrase «ad hominem at»

My statement was not ad hominem at all.

essentially the impact of what you said is: «your argument is like southern racism therefore your a jerk and your words should be disregarded», which you really can't get around now that you literally posted that naked ad hominem at the end of your response.

the direct ad hominem at the end «I'd be shocked if it wasn't one used all the time in your household.»

Not exact matches

Of course any reasoning person would not, those of you who would argue this are only, at this point ad hominem or ad argumentum.

Topher Feeling mellow at the time and knowing what the editors will permit, my ad hominems were quite mild as to what I really think in regards to you, use your imagination.

I am at a loss to explain why you do not get that, although I suspect that in fact you really do, but have no place to go other than the ad hominem route.

And I do appreciate your inability to address the subject at hand, instead choosing to go for a shallow, puerile ad hominem — always the sign of failure in a debate.

While I may use insulting language at times, I in no way say your argument is invalid because of those things, so your ad hominem claim is false.

Ellis, though he claims to have a thick skin, has been deeply affected by the barrage of criticism directed at him, much of it ad hominem.

In his article ««Instinctive Repugnance,»» David Novak seizes upon and distorts a single phrase, taken out of context, from Professor Jon D. Levenson's extensive and thoughtful critique of the interfaith document «Dabru Emet (Speak the Truth): A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity,» in order to launch an ad hominem assault on Prof. Levenson's integrity, his attitude to Christianity, and his suitability to be a professor at Harvard's Divinity School.

If at any time Sir you wish to talk without ad hominem then do get in touch.

I love it when the likes of you claim ad hominem comments are directed at you when you do exactly the same thing.

Like before the use of ad hominem fallacies continue to demonstrate how pathetic these people are at rational debate.

But overall I'm not surprised at the ad hominem fallacies.

you shoud look at yourself more closely... the venom you spew is clearly hatred, you violate the 9th commantment with nearly every post, use continuous streams of ad hominem and non-sequitur.

If you want to attack, then at least don't make it ad hominem.

As an example, if in a presidential debate one candidate says to the other «you are a dangerous psychopath», it actually is not ad hominem if it is true, as it is indeed very relevant to the matter at hand.

you'll not attempt to explain how what you are saying is true, resorting at this point to ad - hominems, which demonstrates that what you are saying is false.

If I wanted the three of you to throw ad hominems and curse at me, I would have asked you to do so.

While Spitzer argued early on in the debate that «ad hominem attacks at this point are really not appropriate for this campaign,» the former governor pushed Stringer on his record.

Often, however, the response may include active opposition and ad hominem attacks aimed at destroying the career and reputation of the maverick scientist.

Critics of the word mansplaining highlight the problems inherent in its usage including essentialism, double standard and at times a reductive approach to discussion, falling into ad hominem territory.

And noting that Bill Ayers helped found and lead a domestic terrorist organization, in which as he told the New York Times on September 11, 2001, «I don't regret setting bombs,» may be ad hominem, but at some point the person is relevant to the message.

If his presentation at the Summit last year is any indication, this session will deal less with research and more with ad hominem attacks.

I do enjoy a good argument, though, and try to avoid at least ad hominems (i.e. «Don't Blame Or Use Personal Attacks»).

Barton: Rather than look at BJFC as an ad hominem wielding troll, I think it is useful to consider him as a prime example of how we all see the world through our own filters.

At least RealClimate is addressing the issues raised by McIntyre and ilk rather than going after their methods, something which might be considered ad hominem, but I personally believe is legitimate.

The many ad hominems and personal insults directed at me only weaken your case, folks.

If you tried this at a scientific meeting you would be instantly labeled as an idiot or crank and brushed off with quite «ad hominem» comments by «real scientists» should you persist.

Havers» slurs («poor reading comprehension» «ideological baloney» — this last a juvenile twist at my name) and mischaracterization of my comments are clearly abusive ad hominem attacks.

When you say ad hominems (at the man or against the man) are important, what do you mean, please clarify.

My new Forbes column is up this week, and discusses the 10:10 video as a logical outcome of the years of ad hominem attacks hurled at skeptics.

You sem to talk about anything but the topic except to throw ad hominems and state your negative opinions regarding the site, Jo Nova and those who post here.CBP's last post was at 11:34 PM.

Also, I appreciate his tendency to deal with the topic at hand rather than ad hominem.

At first, I was moved by things like the retreating glaciers, but then I came across a paper by Lindzen, and soon after saw some of the ad hominem attacks on him.

[1] I don't know much Latin, and I couldn't have cited at that time the exact meaning of «ad hominem».

The name calling on the skeptic side does not compare at all to the ad hominem snarkiness of the so - called climate consensus.

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.

I am accused of argument ad hominem, but it seems to me the argument ad hominem is directed far more at me.

Various ad hominems directed at those criticising action for its own sake.

Various ad hominems directed at those calling for action.

The gratuitous ad hominem attack on a family man when combined with confused aspersions aimed a Bastardi tell a different story — i.e., the Left is seriously lost at sea without Bush to blame and their cries that we are all headed for the edge of the world make humanity look small indeed.

Instead of making baseless ad hominem attacks [edit], please at least try tackle their work.

Should there not be a rational and scientific rather than an ad - hominem approach at RealClimate?

And having reached the point where it is obvious that I am reading an article by someone who has not grasped that ad hominem is a logical fallacy — or, at a minimum, someone who is desperately hoping that his audience hasn't grasped it — I quit reading.

To describe DL's analysis of the inner workings of the IPCC — or my pointing to her research as evidence of bad procedure at the IPCC — as «childish ad hominem attacks» is ludicrous in the extreme and beyond parody.

Not that this post has anything to do with the various ad hominems tossed at the skeptics, but it seems that comparing climate skepticism to other forms of anti-science cranks and medical quacks seems to be the [not so subtle] M.O. of one blog over at Science Blogs [even if they don't go out of their way to actually make that comparison, having it on their list is enough to give one that impression]: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

«toby says: August 13, 2010 at 1:04 am «Ad hominem» you will say — but, if you are honest, does he have good common sense in his head?»

Besides, I don't appreciate the ad hominem's lodged by the author at the reviewers of the Greek paper I was referring to, namely (thanks for the reference;):

We don't all have to enjoy a glass of scotch at the end of the day together, but there's no reason for ad hominem attacks or disrespect.