05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI could find a dozen more definitions of ad hominem. Since there is no hard and fast rule (something you seem to never consider) then my definition is still valid. Since it better describe argumentation, then my definition is even better.
Mr. Logic: Ad hominems are attacks of a person's views or ideas
WRONG!!!! Ad hominems are attacks on the person themselves, not their views or ideas. Here they are:
ad hominem (abusive): instead of ...[text shortened]... you like some salt with the crow you should eat now, Mr. Logic?
Since you don't understand logic, I don't think copy/paste is very persuasive. That was an abusive ad hominem - you moron.
05 Jun 05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
"An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it, where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy. "
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI never knew Christians who lied so much. What does this mean:
Correction: My "attack" on the American legal system was solely because you cited it as an authority on textual interpretation. Indeed, I would've questioned it as a valid authority in this case regardless of your profession - you could be a doctor, a mechanic or a janitor and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.
Look up "appeal to auth ...[text shortened]... rican legal system's principles does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Get your facts right.
Unlike you, I do not consider the American legal system the pinnacle of human thought and reason.
You know I'm a lawyer and the attack was on the American legal system because I am one. Please be at least honest with yourself, LH.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
I never knew Christians who lied so much. What does this mean:
Unlike you, I do not consider the American legal system the pinnacle of human thought and reason.
You know I'm a lawyer and the attack was on the American legal system because I am one. Please be at least honest with yourself, LH.
Please, don't be so paranoid Mausie. It ruins the image you've built up so carefully.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiI guess we really need that Coletti dictionary; every time you are shown to be wrong about the definition of a term you whip up your own definition and say its just as valid. You are a true clown, Coletti. And looking up a word in a dictionary isn't an appeal to authority (unless you've invented your own definition for that as well) and neither is looking up a term in a book on logic. You present non-standard definitions all the time and assert they are as good as the ones everybody but Coletti uses. A jerkwad is more useful than your "thoughts", Coletti.
I could find a dozen more definitions of ad hominem. Since there is no hard and fast rule (something you seem to never consider) then my definition is still valid. Since it better describe argumentation, then my definition is even better.
Since you don't understand logic, I don't think copy/paste is very persuasive. That was an abusive ad hominem - you moron.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you consider looking up a word in the dictionary has a logical fallacy, appeal to authority?🙄
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
"An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it, where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy. "
05 Jun 05
From the same website:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
experts in the field disagree on this issue.
the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
So point out again where I committed a logical fallacy, appeal to authority?
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoe
No1 Maurauder: " (along with the curious fact that the entire OT never suggests that God is anything but unitary)."
... "never suggests" ..... are you sure, no1 ? Where have you gotten that wisdom ? Who told you so ?
Don't forget to address this post of mine, Mausie.