A question of honesty

Originally posted by RJHinds
...there is no need to make ad hominem attacks against others

What ad hominem attacks are you referring to please?

Originally posted by divegeester
What ad hominem attacks are you referring to please?

It doesn't matter because I was speaking in general.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It doesn't matter because I was speaking in general.

I matters to me!

You have accused me twice now of making ad hominem attacks on people and I'd like some evidence please.

Originally posted by divegeester
I matters to me!

You have accused me twice now of making ad hominem attacks on people and I'd like some evidence please.

As I said I was speaking in general. I am sure you are not the kind of person that would make ad hominem attacks on other people, like accussing them of being dishonest liars.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I said I was speaking in general. I am sure you are not the kind of person that would make ad hominem attacks on other people, like accussing them of being dishonest liars.

Confronting someone for lying or cheating is not an ad hominem attack.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I said I was speaking in general. I am sure you are not the kind of person that would make ad hominem attacks on other people, like accussing them of being dishonest liars.

If you are referring to my post offering you the opportunity to declare before God that you are innocent of cheating...firstly that is not an ad hominem. Secondly I did not accuse you of anything, I put you in a position where you could "hand on the bible" so to speak, declare your innocence. If you are referring to another case please identify it. Thank you.

Originally posted by divegeester
I missed this comment earlier. Please see my response on this to sonship above.

Thanks. Final Footnote: To learn any basic or advanced subject at any age requires objectivity [setting aside preconceptions and deeply held emotionally charged opinions]; humility [seeing yourself for who and what you are rather than as some grandiose or imaginary persona]; and acceptance of authority [of the source of information and/or instruction]. There's no learning in any realm when subjectivity, arrogance and rejection of authority prevail, especially with respect to God's Word.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Final Footnote:....

You used to just write:

---THREAD CLOSED---

When the heat got too much for you. This is much nicer tone.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
To learn any basic or advanced subject at any age requires objectivity
....., especially with respect to God's Word.

Comedian!

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
. Final Footnote: .

If only ...............

Originally posted by FMF
Confronting someone for lying or cheating is not an ad hominem attack.

I may be wrong, but I thought it would be something like this as hominem attack I found on the internet:

Another example of ad hominem fallacy is taken from Velonews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling. After an article about the retirement of Lance Armstrong, its webpage shared a post with its readers. A commenter posted a comment saying how great an athlete Armstrong was and that the people should be proud of his achievements.

Another commenter wrote in response to the first commenter:

He’s not a great athlete; he’s a fraud, a cheat and a liar. That’s why not everybody is “happy for Lance.”

http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

Originally posted by RJHinds
I may be wrong, but I thought it would be something like this as hominem attack I found on the internet:

Another example of ad hominem fallacy is taken from Velonews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling. After an article about the retirement of Lance Armstrong, its webpage shared a post with its readers. A commenter posted a comment saying how great ...[text shortened]... That’s why not everybody is “happy for Lance.”

http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

If it is established that you are a liar and a cheat on this web site then it will be established that you are a liar and a cheat on this web site. It's got nothing to do with Lance Armstrong's reputation after he was found to be a cheat and a liar.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I may be wrong, but I thought it would be something like this as hominem attack I found on the internet:

Another example of ad hominem fallacy is taken from Velonews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling. After an article about the retirement of Lance Armstrong, its webpage shared a post with its readers. A commenter posted a comment saying how great ...[text shortened]... That’s why not everybody is “happy for Lance.”

http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

But Lance Armstrong was a fraud, a cheat and a liar so that statemment can hardly be an ad hominem fallacy?! Ironically the same way you are a fraud, a cheat and a liar. 😏

A wonder if this was a Freudian slip?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But Lance Armstrong was a fraud, a cheat and a liar so that statemment can hardly be an ad hominem fallacy?! Ironically the same way you are a fraud, a cheat and a liar. 😏

A wonder if this was a Freudian slip?

Well, that website considered it an ad hominem fallacy even though it may be true. So I don't care what you say, because I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by FMF
If it is established that you are a liar and a cheat on this web site then it will be established that you are a liar and a cheat on this web site. It's got nothing to do with Lance Armstrong's reputation after he was found to be a cheat and a liar.

The point is that even if a person has been a fraud, cheat, and a liar at some point in their life that should not be used to judge everything they say or do as being a lie or a fraud or an attempt to cheat.

An attack on the character of a witness in a trial is sometimes used to discredit their testimony, but even that must be relevant to the accusations in the trial and they must give other reasons to support the attempt to discredit their testimony.