Sentences with phrase «just ad hominem»

If so, that's just ad hominem.

Fifty posts and NO SCIENCE FACTS OR THEORIES — just ad hominem attacks on a man that helped keep the West free and whose work has added billions of dollars of wealth through applications of his work.

But no, just another ad hominem.

Martin, your «reasoning» is just an ad hominem attack.

Not just ad hominem, but the fallacy of representativeness.

no you can not and therefore just another ad hominem attack easily debunked.

Not exact matches

Those that do are just guilty of an ad hominem fallacy; attacking a person's grammar / spelling instead of the actual point of the comment.

and the ad hominem attacks continue... boo hoo... I don't have a valid argument to counter his claims... I'll just call him names to make myself feel better...

ad hominem are just good clean fun.

Oh yes I just love ad hominem attacks lol.

Speaking of non-researched opinionated shlt, not one argument there we see, just a general «ad hominem».

A little tidbit just in case someone should feel that an Ad Hominem Attack is waranted: I am a Veteran of the United States Armed Forces and I WILL defend this country to the death.

How much of this was merely ad hominem and how much represented Jesus» personal conviction concerning human destiny it is difficult to be sure, just as when Plato used demonology to serve his purpose it is difficult to know how literally he took the mental pattern he employed.

Your claims that ``... atheists want to take a limited 2000 or so year old childish concept of God and refute it...» seems to just be a red - herring or ad hominem targeting atheists.

And I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just saying that @jc's point would be more arguable, perhaps, as a weak analogy fallacy rather that the ad hominem s / he chose, since the crux of the argument is the comparison, not the person making the argument.

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.»

you just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing and throwing out random «opinion» and when i ask you to clarify, you go into ad hominem.

@proof2006: disqus I was really hoping that you were going to clarify something, instead of just going for ad hominem attacks about how I'm stupid for wanting a lot of storage on my phone.

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.

Just be sure to do ad hominem correctly, which includes placing a mental asterisk labeling the contention as a hypotheses as opposed to a theory or fact.

I usually ignore the all too typical ad hominem attacks, but when provided with an actual argument, or with evidence that appears to contradict one of my assertions, I've consistently responded — usually by citing hard evidence, not just offering an opinion.

Maybe it's easier and more emotionally satisfying to just engage in ad hominem attacks because you can not refute the evidence right in front of you.

You really should have a look the the IPCC TAR and learn just what evidence and data there is, the «religious» accusation is just an ignorant ad hominem.

You just claimed «You've done nothing to support your claim» is an ad hominem.

Insults, ad hominems and untruths that come along with the package just mean I don't have to visit some places anymore.

Just pointing out the results of an interesting but contrary paper can get you excoriated by ad hominem, then summarily dismissed from further commenting.

You are just using an ad hominem attack on the web site where I found the referenced article and that is sufficient for you to discredit all the data so carefully accumulated in that article.

Kleiman's article is just an extreme example of the kind of ad hominem criticism of denialists common among American liberals.

The other side never seems to understand they're just making a fool out of themselves, by using logical fallacies, Ad Hominems and Absolutist statements to try to prove their points..

You try to tell these great intellectuals this concept of theirs is just a logical fallacy... You tell them this is a logical fallacy called an Ad Hominem.

Either the IPCC defenders make the same objections you have, in which case the criticism boomerangs on them big time, or the IPCCers try to argue from authority / ad hominem, which just drags them down further into the swamp of non-credibility.

Making a specious claim that all climate models are not science adds nothing to science, but is really just another form of ad - hominem.

Sorry, hunter, but the other (less well known) half of the «ad hominem» fallacy is to pretend that a critique just can't apply because of * who * someone is.

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

Re 42 ray ladbury > Steve, do you have a specific allegation against some of Gore's figures, or is this just another excuse for an ad hominem attack?

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?

Your ad hominem attacks are just distracting, and reminiscent of the precise type of attitude towards discussing discrimination that we are trying to eradicate here.

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.

I make a point of really trying to avoid ad hominem attacks, but this time I just can't help myself.