Sentences with phrase «making ad hominem»

It's time for the «convinced» to start beefing up their scientific arguments; they are not going to win any arguments by making ad hominem attacks on other scientists.

For those making ad hominem attacks, that hardly proves your feeble arguments and it is also clearly against the code of conduct.

Instead, it prefers to disparage something or someone by association, by making ad hominem attacks on (real or imagined) supporters of whatever it scorns.

You are making an ad hominem attack, and a sweeping generalization of atheists.

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

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

Not exact matches

Passionate followers — quick to judge the other side as stupid or incorrigible — then pursue heated discourse and hurl ad hominem attacks, making calm and rational discussion all but impossible.

Well, I picked my sons up from practice, come back here to this site, and still find some of the most pathetic, name - calling, personal ad - hominem attacks on others I've seen in awhile... It makes me think that I waste time being on here with some of you.

dalahast / AE, please cease your childish ad hominems, and try for a change to find the courage to reply without making personal attacks on me and others here.

Or perhaps I simply realize that many of the so called rational atheists who post on CNN are dedicated to reason only as long as it supports their positions and when it doesn't immediately switch to ad hominem attacks to try to get people to ignore the legitimate point that was made.

Can you demonstrate how to not make childish ad hominems?

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...

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.

My point was that you were making logical fallacy by attacking your opponent instead of attacking their argument, which is called an Ad Hominem fallacy.

I assume that you are in fact adults, but instead of intelligent replies disputing the «commandments» made by Colin, you have only silly ad hominem remarks reminiscent of arguments on an elementary school playground.

That is classic ad hominem, what they or I know is irrelevant to the argument I made.

Calling someone names and making direct ad hominem attacks (and YES... the TROLL started ALL of that FIRST) is not an ideological argument.

And he would not make the mistake of calling my post «poisoning the well,» which is not correct: it was good old fashioned ad hominem in the first part and sarcasm in the second part.

Nice how you criticized libs for ad hominem attacks right before making one yourself.

ad hominem: short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

Thus, as I have previously stated, this entire article exists for the sole purpose of trying to make people think one way or the other about this man without bothering to think about the issues which he DID speak of in his life, which IS ad hominem.

So these «internal» arguments against free will theism are purely ad hominem, drawing upon ethical views that free will theists are thought to accept but which need not be shared by the process theist making the argument.

It is not an ad hominem, since an ad hominem would attack the person making the claim on their actual character.

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.

«The governor feels the attack the mayor made in July was so personal and so ad hominem that he could never be forgiven,» said the first source.

I can tell you that the creationist science is bad and it's wrong, but I can't tell you whether they are being dishonest because that requires me to look into somebody's heart, and I can't do that, so I'm not going to make those kind of ad hominem comments about the opposition.»

Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person's character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn.

To make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist, misogynist, homophobic, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate.

Writing with vitriolic flair (when deserved) is one thing, but ad hominem attacks of that sort make clear that the critic's chief interest is really himself, which shouldn't be the case.

This fuels ad hominem attacks and makes it more difficult to find workable solutions.

Most of the responses, including Hugh's, completely ignore the points I tried to make and go straight for ad hominem attacks.

Judith Curry wrote: «He voices concerns about the following threats to scientific integrity (see especially the last page): appealing to emotions; making personal (ad hominem) attacks; deliberately mischaracterizing an inconvenient argument; inappropriate generalization; misuse of facts and uncertainties; false appeal to authority; hidden value judgments; selectively leaving out inconvenient measurement results.»

Since the statements about the authors qualifications are both true and relevant — as such statements speak directly to the authors qualifications and authority to make the assertions that they do — then it could scarcely be more obvious that no ad hominem was involved or even possibly involved.

But instead, you chose to make a thinly veiled, and in my opinion rather snide, ad hominem against Gavin himself, when you said, «The Mistaken Assumptions are your's and your's alone.»

I think that given no pointers to sources for the statements I made a good assumption; not a»... and in my opinion rather snide, ad hominem against Gavin himself.»

Also, ad hominems make you look stupid anywhere outside the Daily Kos / Nutroots echo chamber.

But the second one focuses on Bill Gates and makes a third logical fallacy — an inappropriate ad hominem attack: «Gates, however, appears to be someone who doesn't really listen to the advice of experts.

Interesting how you and others simply resort ad hominem attacks and never make any attempt to address my comments.

I think [Regalado is] a reasonably straight journalist who might have a bit of a bias for telling an interesting story and making things a bit ad hominem.

They report their work, make their raw data and analyzing tools publically available, and, when pressed in a debate, they focus on data and research results, not ad hominem attacks.

Instead you stated a number of slurs and insults to demean him and therefore hopefully make people doubt his statements concerning JOS.. That is what ad hominem is, you attack the person to try and show he is wrong rather than present evidence of his wrong doing.

As far as ad - Hominem attacks are concerned, can anyone tell me what makes Hansen a climate expert in the first place?

Ad hominems, demonizing, ignoring the fact of a confession of an identity theft and making an ends justify means defense.

But curiously, their claimed moral superiority doesn't seem to stop them from making the most scurrilous of ad hominem attacks.

An ad hominem uses an attack against a person to discredit an argument the person makes.

This article is an absolutely perfect example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, the deliberate focus upon the persons of those articulating points of contention in order to duplicitously evade addressing the substance of the points these persons are making.

Ad hominem attacks are always my favorite, as they reveal much about the attacker and nothing about the person being attacked or the point they're making.

After one final ad hominem, he makes a really ludicrous statement: «And I call upon the DE and the SIUC community to make our Voices page a place for OUR voices — not reprints of shills for the fossil fuel industry.»

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..

The way some of these people savagely attack her, and make terrible, incompetent arguments from authority and ad hominem when they do so, tells me something is wrong with t