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.
One would imagine —
at least this writer's journalistic opinion — that extensive and accurate research would be the ground floor for factual, open - source, non-pejorative, non-ad
hominem reporting and journalism.
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;):