Sentences with phrase «ad hominem attacks like»

Too bad these climate blogs (both skeptics and believers) focus on ad hominem attacks like this.

But I touched on some nerves for you to start ad hominem attacks like that.

Not exact matches

Most of the «rules for blogging» I have come across — like Alan Jacobs's «Rules for Deportment for Online Discourse» — focus on very basic things like avoiding ad hominem attacks and not arguing in bad faith.

To attack a proposal as supposedly being wrong simply because it is spoken by Someone the Speaker does not like is argumentum ad hominem, is logically invalid, and strongly suggests said Speaker has no real way discrediting the * ideas * put forth in said proposal.

You can't attack his argument, so you attack his person like a child who doesn't know what an ad hominem is.

But it seems you don't like when you prefer ad hominem attacks to clarifying yourself.

That said, it is the right step, «We will» was not meaningfully adding to the discussion with all of her / his ad hominem attacks and statements like «drink the kool aid».

That said, I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down the ad hominem attacks if you want to comment here again — words like «moron» have no place here.

Some ads produced by advocacy groups outside the campaigns go beyond the issues into ad hominem attacks, labeling Schaffer as «Big Oil Bob»; a Web site shows a cartoon of him riding an oil well like a cowboy.

There are exceptions; notably a lot of recent reviews of a best - selling memoir have attacked the author instead of the book, but when a book has lots of reviews it's easier just to skip over the obvious ad hominem attacks of small - minded people, especially those who like to write in all caps.

There's something hypocritically like an ad hominem attack in your criticism of the use of «adopted».

So it may take several tries, esp if it has invective and ad hominem attacks, or is well outside of science (like too much on religion or economics), or too off - topic.

Paul K: For my own part I don't engage in uncivil, ad - hominem attacks... except against those like Dr. Pachauri & Dr. Hansen, who want me in an eco-gulag along with anyone who can read a thermometer or interpret a chart.

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.

Whether they stack the deck on funding, or give a pass on paper reviews, or gloss over their friends» failings, or use public, ad hominem attacks on people that have a different view... to people like Gleick these things are acceptable, even noble, because they are trying to save the world.

That then is followed by comments like I need to have an open mind and other verging on ad hominem attacks.

So, let's see, when we (those defending the AGW theory) note that, of the small minority of scientists on the skeptic side making discredited arguments, many if not most seem to have quite direct connections to right - wing or libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Fund or with the fossil fuel (especially coal) industry, we are derided as engaging in «ad hominem» attacks and so forth.

Second, I don't «deny» anything, that is a pathetic ad hominem attack that just makes you look like a pathetic noob.