Sentences with phrase «with ad hominem attacks»

The global warming community spends a lot of time with ad hominem attacks on skeptics, usually accusing them of being in the pay of oil and power companies, but they all know that their own funding in turn would dry up rapidly if they were to show any bit of skepticism in their own work.

If I spam V **** ads to a blog, and someone calls me a spammer, and I respond that they're not refuting my ad with their ad hominem attacks, I think I'm adding to the original offense.

«Apparently rather than debating the merits of his argument in a rational and reasoned manner, Gore is left only with ad hominem attacks and smug condescension toward his critics.

RC is an apologist site for Michael Mann, set up to try to counter science with ad hominem attacks...

You haven't apologized for smearing me with ad hominem attacks that are, in my opinion, unbecoming of a professional.

One sure sign that someone's arguments are weak is when they start with ad hominem attacks..

Wow, this board is loaded with ad hominem attacks.

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.

If his presentation at the Summit last year is any indication, this session will deal less with research and more with ad hominem attacks.

You commence again with ad hominem attacks: I am a liar, stupid or misinformed.

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.

I don't agree with any ad hominem attack from either side.

But this morning, Jonathan Pelto came out with an ad hominem attack about us on his blog called «Can ConnCAN Con Conn» that claims to have uncovered some sort of hidden agenda.»

If people disagree they should argue against Philips» point, an not insult her and themselves with an ad hominem attack.

Not exact matches

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.

You log into Facebook and it has happened once again: Some broad political sentiment sparks a flame - war and everyone seems to want to weigh in with a jab, meme, ad hominem attack or (arguably worst of all) a wall of text that begs for you to «see more.»

Chad Well I guess you will have to take the whole day off from whining about ad hominem attacks since you started off with one against a group of people.

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.

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.

Obviously you've mistaken an ad hominem attack with a statement of fact.

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.

That said, it is the right step, «We will» was not meaningfully adding to the discussion with all of her / his ad hominem attacks and statements like «drink the kool aid».

Anyone attempting to link his death with his diet is not only guilty of a shameless ad - hominem attack, but is telling an outright lie.

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.

With rare exceptions, when I go looking, I instead find mostly snark, ad hominem attacks, and condescension.

While I don't support the ad hominem attacks, he doesn't exactly seem to be taking the high road with responders.

This is an ad hominem attack and as I said no one with an ounce of sense resorts to this these days, except for idiots.

When we pillory critics for saying hard but true things; when our leaders who've championed inclusiveness issue (and defend) bigoted remarks; when we plod from one spiteful spat to the next, played out (performed, really) in online forums and social media with all the requisite snark and ad hominem attacks, it's worth asking what kind of audience are we?

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.

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.

V: The most convincing evidence for the validity of Booker's argument can be found right here on this blog, where the vast majority of responses to ANYTHING posted by ANYONE expressing skepticism of the mainstream view is dismissed with insults and ad hominem attacks, in perfect accordance with the «group think» paradigm.

My miserably inadequate defense is that I'm new to this «blogging» universe, where the blog owners have a right to enforce their own strict standards; but I am familiar with, and am a refugee from, the sort of very «loosely» moderated discussion forums wherein ad hominem attacks are perhaps not universally acceptable, but certainly seem to be tacitly tolerated.

The criticism of ad hominem attacks would be apropriate in normal circumstances but, in this case, the head of the IPCC started it with his flat earth denunciation.

Again, the alarmist modus operandi — it is much better to smear the person in ad hominem attacks than deal with his argument.

Paul K: For my own part I don't engage in uncivil, ad - hominem attacks... except against those like Dr. Pachauri & Dr. Hansen, who want me in an eco-gulag along with anyone who can read a thermometer or interpret a chart.

And, all who are in league with those who use the «denier» label are playing the ad hominem attack game.

* Ad hominem * attacks are commonplace, with activists routinely suggesting that dissent is funded by «Big Oil».

Its 2 authors and 35 contributors are outstanding scientists with unassailable credentials — a fact that, unfortunately, won't stop movement alarmists from their customary ad hominem attacks.

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.

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 forth.

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

-- trivial falsifiability (rather then necessary and sufficient)-- an attack on falsifiability as necessary (arguing with the scientific method itself)-- appeal to authority (quite often to authorities that are trivially refuted)-- ad hominem — the precautionary principle (without any thought to the adverse consequences of their proposed interventions)

Very nice, the post starts out with two paragraphs worth of ad hominem attacks, and continues to links of what they consider «debunking» of valid concerns to the mechanisms and severity of AGW theory, followed by two - hundred - somewhat comments of symbiotic ego pumping.

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.

Lindzen (1990); Kerr (1989b); «stuck with a role,» quoted Grossman (2001); Lindzen has been accused of obfuscation, taking extreme ideological positions, and unjust ad hominem attacks, see e.g., Gelbspan (1997), pp. 49 - 54, but the accusation that Lindzen has been in the pay of industry is based only on lecture fees that Lindzen received.

They misrepresent evidence, engage in ad hominem attacks and other fallacious arguments, they continually premise shift, when challenged they change the subject, they use obfuscation and argument by assertion; they are funded by people with a vested interest in a particular conclusion; and more.

Ad hominem (Latin for «to the man» or «to the person» [1]-RRB-, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itselAd hominem (Latin for «to the man» or «to the person» [1]-RRB-, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itselad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

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?

And most his other post are along the same line, with ad - hominem attacks to others, name calling, tagging ideas as wrong without any real scientific arguments.