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.
And when he does criticize, Klein also reaches for compliments — teachers union boss Randi Weingarten may have been the bane of his professional life, and in Klein's view she missed the chance to be truly revolutionary, but she is «whip smart» and
avoided ad hominem attacks.
Lets keep this on the science from now on, and lets
avoid ad hominems.
Roy Hogue has asked me to
avoid ad hominem attacks, and I will try to do so.
For the most part the refereed literature
avoids the ad hominem arguments that characterize this blog.
The thing is to try to constrain the arguments to data and models,
avoid ad hominem.
Please
avoid ad hominem attacks and stick to the actual evidence.
I make a point of really trying to
avoid ad hominem attacks, but this time I just can't help myself.
Not exact matches
Again you
avoided everything I said and proceeded wth
ad hominems.
I wish to respond up front to these two objections, since I know all too well the effectiveness of
ad hominem attacks used to discredit a voice,
avoiding debate and thus dispensing with substantive analysis of the issues.
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.
I know that you called my argument stupid but you never gave a compelling reason why (which isn't
ad hominem, by the way since you were targeting a argument and not a person, do read more about informal fallacies to
avoid seeming uneducated).
I do enjoy a good argument, though, and try to
avoid at least
ad hominems (i.e. «Don't Blame Or Use Personal Attacks»).
This is the sine qua non of
ad hominem, an attempt to
avoid open, rational, democratic accountability and responsibility.
For years, I presume partially in an effort to
avoid debate, certain alarmists have taken the
ad hominem position that skeptics are anti-science.