Sentences with phrase «ad hominems like»

I would hope that any discussion of the Goldstone Report could get beyond simple ad hominems like who called whom a racist, or who used what nickname, and into matters of substance.

This stretch is bad enough but what's worse is how Prothero's disdain for Santorum manifests itself repeatedly throughout the piece in a petty ad hominem like «Saint Santorum» and resurrecting the deliberating misleading conflation of Santorum's personal beliefs about birth control with his public policy stance.

You mean an ad hominem like the one you ended your pointless post with?

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.

This individual is apparently like most other Christains... lacking the ability to substantiate their beliefs and therefore, engage in ad hominem type comments.

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.

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

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

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

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

Other than that I noticed you started ad hominem remarks (not like I care because it shows the level you went) when thes are not called for.

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.

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.

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.

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

It seemed that the liberal use of concepts like «ad hominems» can be a very effective censorship tool — and it also allows you to lay claim to the moral high ground.....

That looks like an ad hominem argument to me, similar to the trashing of Fred Singer's climate science because he disagreed with secondhand cigarette smoke.

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.

Mandia acted like someone in the background was ineffectively prompting him with pre-arranged soundbites, tips on responses to Judith's points and ad hominems against HI & IPCC critics.

So I'd like to know where you see the ad hominem here.

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.

[Moderator's Note: I'm sure some readers will be grateful for that information, but don't you think it sounds a bit like an ad hominem argument, not to mention an undocumented assertion?

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.

So I would challenge sofianmannonen, or anyone else tempted to make ad hominem comments like that, to submit their own article.

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

However, the levels read like a recipe for formalizing ad hominem responses.

This may sound like an ad hominem, but we have seen, over and over, how science gets abused these past few years by those in power.

Mr STT seems to like «ad hominem» arguments.

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

It had some minor credibility problems, mostly automatic ad hominems from the folks who didn't like the 17,000 or so scientists (predominately) who expressed doubt with GHGs causing global warming.

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».

This includes the odd ad hominem or two, like the sneering «What does an astronomer know about the climate?»

Some people don't like the message they are hearing; so, they interpret the meaning of some words in the most damning way from an ad hominem standpoint, regardless of the original intent or meaning.