Sentences with phrase «ad hominem if»

Call it ad hominem if you like (I don't), but this sort of stuff goes to discredit anything they say.

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.

Insulting someone is only an ad hominem if it formulates the basis of an argument.

It IS ad hominem if you do nt give justification for why I am an antisemetic bigot... I can assure you that I am not.

Not exact matches

If what you're trying to use here is the ad hominem fallacy - attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument - then the only people you'll convince with this tactic are those who haven't learned to think critically.

Well, ignoring your childish ad hominem, why would you kowtow before a shallow, vain and unjust god if it were not out of fear of punishment or greed for the afterlife?

If therefore as Christians we feel obliged to use the reprimand, the argumentum ad hominem, or even physical restraint, we must realize all the time that such things are only a means to an end; by themselves they are both incomplete and ineffectual.

The post was not ad hominem, which you would know if you had attempted to prove your point with valid reasoning.

That an ad hominem arguement if I ever heard one, alfonse.

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

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

Allow me to elaborate: ad hominem is actually NOT a fallacy if the character of the subject of the ad hominem is indeed relevant.

Argumentum ad hominem would be if I said, «Chad's wrong about punctuated equilibrium being evidence for god because he's just an inbred, backwoods, bible - thumpin» moron.»

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

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.

If you're looking for your comment and don't see it here, it's because you've violated The Lunch Tray's longstanding policy against ad hominem, personal attacks on this blog.

If you're male, and question the hegemony non-medically trained midwives assert over childbirth, or suggest that the homebirthing movement is a failed experiment you can expect nasty ad - hominem from the post-rational coterie who will do anything to avoid addressing the substance of the contention that natural birth and homebirthing have been empirically shown to be a failure, and should be abandoned.

If you scroll about three quarters of the page down you will be able to examine the type of «in - depth», ad hominem analysis that a commenter calling himself JATdS has already carried out on what is perhaps the most widely cited of my publications.

In light of that, I'm disappointed (if not surprised) that most of the responses I've seen to Biggs and Richwine have been ad hominem, with Duncan declaring in the Huffington Post that the study «insults teachers and demeans the profession.»

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 don't care if that was a case of the ad hominem fallacy.

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

as always the ad hominem attacks on people if they are not «as literate» as the poster think they should be..

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.

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.

«If you do so during the argument instead of addressing the arguments of your opponent then yes, this is the ad hominem fallacy in all its glory.

Sebastian wrote: «Is it normal that you guys / gals switch to ad hominem attacks if you feel your beliefs threatened?»

You both throw ad hominems around and then become indignant if someone reciprocates.

A mild form of ad hominem attack, if you will; you center your critique on personal attributes without addressing matters of fact.

These are rarer than the general tone of discussion would lead one to believe, if we listened to everything we said about one another ad hominem.

Do you think that you could maybe go cold turkey for a day or two, maybe drink some coffee, and see if you could actually winnow an argument out of all of the straw men, ad hominem, sarcasm, and so on?

Spraying this blog with vexatious and repeated ad hominems till you're blue in the face, refusing to address the central point about the importance of data sharing and throwing in a little patronising, elitist put - down «if folks want to play citizen scientist» (by the way what are your specific scientific credentials?)

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.

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.

It's a classic ad hominem technique — if you can't discredit someone's argument then you try to discredit them personally.

Santer or you can make ad - hominem attacks on sceptics and deliver all the information you wish to deliver on their suspicious ethics (if and when), but this information and those attacks simply don't count.

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.

If I spam V **** ads to a blog, and someone calls me a spammer, and I respond that they're not refuting my ad with their ad hominem attacks, I think I'm adding to the original offense.

If so, that's just ad hominem.

If you're interested in seeing what playing the player instead of the ball looks like, check out the alarmist site Only In It For the Gold, where Michael Tobis unleashes endless vicious ad hominem against any skeptics who raise their voice (his most recent was a long diatribe against Freeman Dyson, whom he apparently considers a geriatric buffoon), and opens threads on what names one should call «denialists», regularly bans commenters who argue a point too vociferously, or anyone claiming scientific credentials but arguing against «the consensus».

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/

If Chris Monckton, common bloke, reading the scientific literature, finds fault with the methodologies of researchers, and has laid out his objections in excruciating detail, could we give those objections a look, and ascertain whether his arguments have any merit, without resort to ad hominem diversions about his alleged delusions of grandeur?

«Ad hominem» you will say — but, if you are honest, does he have good common sense in his head?

The global warming community spends a lot of time with ad hominem attacks on skeptics, usually accusing them of being in the pay of oil and power companies, but they all know that their own funding in turn would dry up rapidly if they were to show any bit of skepticism in their own work.

To help with my research on logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks I was wondering if the following selection of comments lifted from just two threads on here represent legitimate intellectual attacks on a persons ideas, motivations and political agenda?

«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?»

I made a narrow point which you conveniently ignored (even if I had been referring just to the criminal law) as a springboard for what amounts to an ad hominem response.

If and when this happens, do not give in to your temptation to holler ad hominem!

If people disagree they should argue against Philips» point, an not insult her and themselves with an ad hominem attack.