Sentences with phrase «so ad hominem»

There's not usually a lot of flame wars in this community, so your ad hominem response is unfortunate.

«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.

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.

Not exact matches

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.

Don't take my recent postings with Dala too seriously, I have tried to be civil with him but he can not get past ad hominem attacks to discuss issues, and so I have given up with him.

I truly must admire our dear Christian poster J.W., whose Christian spite is so pronounced that he has to go ad hominem pre-emptively, before anyone has said anything.

So, Kermit, having no answer to the questions asked, resorts to ad hominems.

You can't attack his argument, so you attack his person like a child who doesn't know what an ad hominem is.

mont: «So when Nah responds that a logical, well thought out statement is an «ad hominem» based on his own mindless medieval dogmatic beliefs, he is the one actually committing the «ad hominem»»

Ad Hominem, saying you have to stick to your delusions is Ad Hominem, how so?

One person says something that another doesn't agree with, so instead of having a mature conversation about it, they begin with ad hominem attacks.

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.

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.

You basically can't come up with some intelligent thing to say (no surprise) so you resort to ad hominem tactics.

Additionally, I never said I don't pay my taxes, so your argument is a completely ad hominem fallacious argument.

If I wanted the three of you to throw ad hominems and curse at me, I would have asked you to do so.

Trying to change the subject so that you can call me a hypocrite is ad hominem tu quoque.

Either way, I think the residents of our county deserve a realistic account of the issues and not unproductive ad hominem campaign attacks that we are all so tired of every election cycle.

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.»

In the so - called abusive ad hominem, someone argues that because a person has a bad character, we should not accept that person's claims.

So, apart from the accusations of cherry - picking and ad hominem attacks, can we conclude that the ME warm period was not as warm as today?

They see evidence against their view, so they will a) go for the ad hominem maybe noting the poor credentials or the funding source b) find weaknesses in the studies but, there are weaknesses in all studies c) find another study that supports their own and say hey presto....

The ad hominem attacks are indicative of people that can't explain what they mean so they seek to demean others.

I know that the «Kyoto will only do so little» argument can be stretched too far, to the point of suggesting climate action won't do anything in any case, and I do see your viewpoint there (though I think you do needlessly brush an ad hominem in the process of stating that viewpoint).

I call B * ll *** t. All of your points so far have been ad hominem attacks on RC, and apparently you are not willing to come up with an independent though (which reflects that you actually read the back - and - forths of Mann et al), that you are willing to put up for cross-examination.

So come on guys — don't slip into ad hominem slams and narrow views of what kind of science is really needed.

I suspect that that is progress, and so I hope that instead of writing RC blog comments bashing George Will, sometimes in a bloggish ad hominem way, for all his faults, people will instead read the Will column carefully and then send reasoned, brief, compelling rebuttals to [email protected].

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.

So the piece starts out by noting the news and essentially * rejecting * ad hominem use of that news.

«If you do so during the argument instead of addressing the arguments of your opponent then yes, this is the ad hominem fallacy in all its glory.

So how can my comments be considered an ad hominem attack?

When you argue ad hominem, as you seem to, best to know the kind of man you argue with — so think of it as me helping you, Venter (thats the thing that produces hot air, right?)

Roy Hogue has asked me to avoid ad hominem attacks, and I will try to do so.

Even without disputing Jenkins on climate change (I can't see how he advances the debate with ad hominem attacks — and am pleased to see he has subsequently apologised for this in a letter in The Australian), there is a clear case for exploring alternative energy now, and doing so aggressively.

It's sad you feel the need to so regularly slink off with ad hominems when you've been shown to be wrong.

So I protested against that as well, and I will continue to do so despite the ad hominems heaped on me for having the gall to say that folks should speak out publicly against bad sciencSo I protested against that as well, and I will continue to do so despite the ad hominems heaped on me for having the gall to say that folks should speak out publicly against bad sciencso despite the ad hominems heaped on me for having the gall to say that folks should speak out publicly against bad science.

Saying so typically leads to a torrent of angry ad hominem and defensive attacks, and evokes little in the way of actual concern for the integrity of this highly politicized area of science.

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

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.

Denial and ad hominem attack will only get you so far.

I have asked you numerous pertinent question which you have failed to answer... so quit with your ad hominem «fail» toward others.

You can't deal with his science, so you resort to ad - hominem.

Do you think that you could maybe go cold turkey for a day or two, maybe drink some coffee, and see if you could actually winnow an argument out of all of the straw men, ad hominem, sarcasm, and so on?

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

You also seem to equate the site with a single person, presumably Kim Capria who is the main person being «debunked» by dailycaller, but the article in question is written by someone different, so this mostly ad hominem attack is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Doing so can not be easy, since internet discussions typically vary wildly in terms of quality and coherence, and ad hominem attacks are quite high in web - based paleoclimate discussions, making it hard to know how much personal acrimony tints the arguments.

The name calling on the skeptic side does not compare at all to the ad hominem snarkiness of the so - called climate consensus.

The admirable intent of your original post on this thread has been entirely high jacked by did so / did not, he said / she said, and the usual ad hominems which outside academia are termed slurs and name calling.

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 fortSo, 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 fortso forth.

You have shaky science with no empirical proof, so you must resort to ad hominem attacks.