posted
I couldn't help but see what was up with this site so I went to read up on the subject...and found that... well.. This site is just plain awesome! You can use all the tactics to get out of conversations you'd rather not be in.....
"I agree with everything you said except the conclusion. It doesn't make any sense to me, and I can not accept it. I am trying, but your brain must work much differently than mine."
*L!*
I LIKE this site!
Fortunately, though I am not fully familiar with terms such as "Ad Hominem", I am familiar with the principles behind them. I love raising the "BS flag" when people start spouting spurious logic such as this.
posted
Ad Hominem: "Attack the Man"... an [illogical] debating tactic where instead of criticising your opponent's arguments, you attack your opponent due to other unrelated reasons (ie, personal insults).
*never realized his term studying logic would be useful*
Wait till I tell you about Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
------------------ "They don�t call it show business for nothing. This is an ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly town in many, many ways. But big f*cking deal. Big business is ugly. The world is ugly. Our job is to make our little piece of it better. Whenever you get into the general, it�s not going to be all beer and Skittles and Christmas trees." -Ira Stephen Behr on the Moore fiasco
------------------ "We kid around a lot about people who are cyclopses, but seriously; if you're a mythic figure you've got challenges that no one should have to deal with." -- John Flansburgh
posted
In other words, when someone responds to your statements by yelling "Fascist!" or "Gun Nut!" or "Satanist!" or (Insert the racial/ethnic/sexual epithet of your choice), he/she/it is using an Ad Hominem argument.
F'r instance: "First of Two prefers punishing the naughty to passing unnecessary laws that will weaken the nice! He's a right-wing crackpot!" is an Ad-Hominem argument, one that will get you laughed at by me.
------------------ "When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
posted
Well, ad hominem remarks aren't completely useless. Once you've determined that your opponent has no comprehension whatsoever of the concept of logic, a real arguement really has no point. Might as well try to make them look stupid even to their illogical sympathizers... :-)
------------------ Taurik: "He's convinced Commander Riker doesn't like him." Ben: "Why? You crash the ship into something?" -TNG: "Lower Decks"
------------------ "Angels, answer me, are you near if rain should fall? Am I to believe you will rise to calm the storm? For so great a treasure words will never do. Surely, if this is, promises are mine to give you. mine to give........ " ~ Enya
Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
I'd respond, but I don't think you would understand.
------------------ Nurse: Can I help you? Stan: We're here to commit our friend, Kyle. Nurse: Reason? Kyle: I'm a clinically depressed fecalpheliac on Prozac. Nurse: JACKET!!
posted
Comprehension is not required in context. Just look at every second post here!
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
Printer-friendly view of this topic
