This not a political thread and it is not a judgement thread. But I am curious about which words make you want to vomit when reading posts on sciforums. It is ok to disagree since we assume that not all words that make some people sick make other people sick. That's ok. It i sjust a measurment about what people stand for here. See it as a personality test.

My favourite vomit inducing word is:

Home Defense
It pops up often in conjuction with the word
gun,
which is also on my favourite list.

Not that these words make me want to vomit, but they are often included in the posts that make me want to vomit...
existence
proof
common sense
obvious
truth
consciousness

Individual words are generally harmless to me. I have more problems with the ways people string individual words together. I won't get started.

How can anyone in existence and with a common sence be "hurt" by simple words like gun or home defence. Truth is words has no meaning, its the action behind them that counts.
This is proof of the obvious differens in the humans sub consciousness.

Free will
Cognitive
sentient
conscious(ness [agreed OR])
industrious
stewardship
anthropomorphise(or something)
(the) right
opposable thumb... errr...
"moreover" :rolleyes:

Heaps more, and like others have said these words aren't inherently bad they are just commonly found in bad posts.
And whats the problem with home defense spurious? I know you said this all about matters of opinion but thats like such a specific thing, words I hate; al sharpton, no offense al sharpton.
I don't know what your beef with home defense is??? Are you a cat burglar?
Where I live now it would be rather ridiculous for me to go on about home defense but i have lived in houses in areas where I was constantly on edge all the time and had trouble sleeping etc and I don't see the problem with having some kind of home defense if you are living like this, it is a necessity if you are to lead a normal life, for some people their life wouldn't be worth living without it.
Not a gun fan myself, but big nasty security dogs? You bet.
You might be comfortable where you're living, as of january 2004 I can relate but I couldn't before and I can still understand that home defense can be a very serious need for some people.
For me it was not a form of overkill, "home defense" has litteraly in real life prevented me from being brutally beaten(or worse) by furious lower class skum on a few occassions, it has even prevented god knows what from happening to my mother on a few occassions. When i was a little kid I saw people visibly aching to come into my yard and physically attack my mother but they were held at the fence by dogs and forced to scream profanities and make death threats. Not for any reason in particular, thats just the kind of people that used to live in the same area as me.
Surely you understand that all people aren't harmless, and all good people aren't trained ninjas that can effectively defend themselves from gangs of attackers.
I would argue that when we, as a species, find a permanent shelter it is correct and natural(even instinctual) to have it guarded by a canine or 2. Thats what they're there for.
(and hunting and sheep herding etc, but we don't do that much anymore, we do however still live in houses and homo-sapiens still are a viscious combative and quarrelsome species, that can be a danger to eachother)

I have the right to vomit whenever I want Dr Lou. That doesn't mean that there is something wrong with home defense. There might be something wrong with a society in which home defense is high on the priority list. But feel free to discuss that in one of those 'society' subforums.

What's wrong with opposable thumb?

Retort

I hate the word retort. Egh. I just hate it.

Free will is a sign of a cognitive and sentient being, Its every conscious beings rigth to retort any commet they please.

We have reach this industrious age by the use of our opposable thumbs, how the continued stewardship of our future goes no one know, "moreover" who cares anyway when you can have fun now.

anthropomorphise?

Anthropomorphize is to ascribe or assign a quality of human charactaristics to things not human

Many words make me cringe and are often words I do not understand. Which is why I keep a dictionary close and handy!

I'd also hafta add 'Retort' to my list. It's just not a cool word to hear. I'm not speaking of the definition of the word either.

Free will
cognitive
sentient
being
every conscious
retort
industrious age
opposable thumbs
stewardship
future
moreover
fun
anthropomorphise?

So you did you vomit when you wrote this, or do you derive pleasure from making other people vomit?

Individual words rarely make me want to vomit. However, some words when put together in a sentence can make me want to hurt people, due to the racist, homophobic, sexist and generally idiotic nature of the sentence.

However there is one thing when said or read that makes me want to vomit, regardless of the reason used. It's not a word but a name:

George Bush

Just the thought of that man and I can feel the bile rise. Ugh... :mad:

did you vomit from your or my first post?, i admit i was having a little fun, but the game is broken now so i stop :)

must resist voices in me head, must resist, Geo... must resist.

Oh ok, there is a word that makes me want to vomit and hurt people. Seriously hurt people...

"Ya'll" :mad:

I mean honestly! Ya'll is not a word! Even if the person saying 'ya'll' is from some stagnant backwater... IT'S NOT A WORD! Why can't people say 'you are all' or 'you all' etc? Why the 'ya'll'? Makes me want to scream.. aarrrrggghhhhhhh!!!

And Kunax, resist the force :p

terrorism, terrorist, fundamentalist when uttered by othdeap.

secularism, theocracy by undecided.

God .

I don't have specific words, just topics that make me sick on the stomach. These include:

Judaism, and anything related politically or religiously or historically.
Terrorism
September 11 (no not the concept of it, just the process of discussing and saying it)
Love (includes bf/gf trouble and any girly mush. manly mush is ok.)

It's not so much particular words, but a few phrases that I can only assume are used in a feeble attempt to cover up shortcomings.

Ad hom - sounds like something you would get at a kosher deli
appeal to authority - Some members on this forum are accepted authorities in certain fields. Grow up and deal with it.

cognitive surrender - This ranks up there on the dork-o-meter with the guys who wear Spock ears to a Star Trek movie and Civil War re-enactment guy. Which one of you asshats introduced that little nugget in to Sciforums? Speak up. Time to take your punishment.

Wanderer's obsession with scatological terms is a little scary, but I don't want to go there.

I dislike "hate".

Anthropomorphize is to ascribe or assign a quality of human charactaristics to things not human
I know exactly what it means.
These are just words people use whilst trying to argue with me and thats why I hate them(the "opposable thumb" thing was more of a joke than anything)

What irritates me about "anthropomorphize" is it is often used by people trying to nullthromorphize(I know thats not a word) animals.
Meaning make out like they are nothing, I am guilty of anthropomorphising but that is only because I am talking to humans and want them to understand the general idea of what I'm saying.
Like if I say "the bear was sad" I'll get "ahem you're anthropomoprhizing animals", and it just irritates the fuck out of me, like "fine the bear was 'growl, grrr *negative message from the brain*etc etc".
I'm not anthropomorphising I'm translating.
The way some people(and usually these are the people that use the word anthropomorphise) act is like animals are innanimate objects, like humans called "dibs" on all the universal traits and now the other species can't have anything.
I might as well accuse people of anthropomorphisizing(I think I've spelt that different everytime) humans.
Like if some says they love something I can pull them up and say "no the stimulai your brain recieves of that thing causes blah blah blah".
Get fucked people who use the word anthropomorphisizzle, its old, made when man assumed he was created unique by god and all other things were created to be his toys.
Now we know the pig is our cousin, so when I imply that it is behaving in a way humans have been known to it should be accepted and no one should be shocked or in disbelief that a pig could act this way.
Fair enough if I say it was brushing its hair and talking on the phone but if its feeling a mammal-emotion that should come as no surprise to anyone.

I'm not anthropomorphising I'm translating.
I know what you are saying, and I mostly agree with you, but I couldn't help but wonder if you are going to change your name from Dr Lou natic to Dr Doolittle. :D

"Ya'll" It's, "Y'all." Short for you all.

"UFO" as being a synonym for alien spacecraft. A UFO is what it says, "Unidentified Flying Object" - anything. If one wants to imply that something is ET, just go ahead and say, "I think I saw an alien spacecraft." If one says, "I saw a UFO", I think, "Unidentified" and, therefore, irrelevant until identified.

Let me add:

missing link

It's, "Y'all." Short for you all.

aaaaaaarrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! :eek:

Tiassa, I detest it. Why can't they say 'you all'? Does it take that much effort?

And thanks for correcting the typo. And yes I am aware of what it stands for. :p I had this girl from Atlanta in one of my classes a couple of years ago and she'd always say it. And then one day after a 45 minute presentation she asked me a question and said the dreaded word... 'y'all'. I broke the pencil that was in my hand and she never asked me a question since with the term 'y'all' in it. Class was a bit more pleasant after that :).

And spurious.. lol, the one I want to add to my list is creation and creationism... grrrrrrrr!!

George Bush the well know terrorist and fundamentalist, praises his god high before him and all others. But he still bows down to his isrealie masters. Is there tainted version of Judaism better then his god?

After September 11 George Bush has been trying to create a theocracy in the united states, ralling strong allies to his side, both politically and religiously.
He even manage lured the amerika people in to a trap of fake patroism and love of country, allowing him to start a campain of Terrorism acrosse the globe. Still there a some that protest and tries to stop his campain of hate and death, But they are few and far between, there voices go unheard, there appeal to authority often futile and wasted.

The scattered few, that have manage to find the missing link and penetrate the walls of paper, have been push back by the cognitive surrender and Ad hom of those in power.

Y'all should move to Europa, to places like France a historically ancient country, and where secularism seems to be on top of the agenda, or Belgium which has on more then 1 occation, scrabbled figther to intercept UFO.

Oh .... "it's" when "its" is intended. "It's" is a contraction of "it is (was, has)".... "its" is possessive form of it.

"Its only problem is that it's broken."

I really hate the term wOOt, I cannot stand that term. Behoove, that's pretty gay, ehm... and when words are used out of context! Oh man, that is so annoying. I hate it when ppl TRY to sound smart by looking at the thesaurus and using a synonym that simply doesn’t fit. I also despise the mis-use of logical fallacies.

Oh you know what word I hate, in general?
MARRIAGE
whoever says it has to be tortured by Xev's methods and worse..... ggrrrawrrrrrr

Tiassa, I detest it. Why can't they say 'you all'? Does it take that much effort? Because contracting words and phrases is part of the American experience. I used to detest the term as well, but a yachting joke (How do you tell a sailor from the South? He sails a yawl.) and the busting of a myth for me eliminated my objection.

I used to think it was just a southern thing. And then I realized it was also an "old west" thing. And then I caught it in New England in literature, and while it would be a couple years before I started using the word at all, the New England example, along side the affirmative "Ayuh," eventually stuck with me. What finally crammed it into my lexicon was force of habit, as I discovered that "Y'all territory" is almost anywhere outside metropolitan and suburban areas, and also in poor urban communities.

Although I will amend my prior statement about words and strings of words.

• "Transition" is not a verb. You can lasso with a lasso, but you don't lariat with a lariat, and you transfer, not transition something from one condition to another. (Origin: Apparently white-collar, as in, After we get the files into boxes, we need to transition the whole lot to Chicago.)

This is the first example. To be honest, my time away from insurance companies has finally started to erase that list of dreaded words. I call them "marketspeak," referring to marketing departments across the country that constantly "transition" cheap advertising trinkets, catalogs, and even conventioners around the world.

I've mulled writing a novel about it, but I haven't a story to go with it. But I was thinking, at one point, of writing a completely pointless novel with no real moral dilemmas, and merely document a futuristic day in the life of a bureaucrat. What set me on it was hearing someone stop speaking amid a sentence so that the last syllables I heard were "passenge." So of course I mutated that fragment of sound into the idea of simply making up new words and writing the story. "Joe, could you ledge me passenge to India? (Translation: Joe, could you book me a plane ticket to India?)

My thing with "Y'all" is a split. I don't actually like saying, "Hey, y'all," in my best Maycomb voice, but "y'all" works well rhythmically if you're addressing a group:

• I thought I'd take the lot of you out for a drink as a reward for your hard work.
• I thought y'all might need a drink.

But, anyway, if you work around a standard, cubicle-farm corporate bureaucracy, listen in on what people are saying. We nod and say we understand and even do, but if you were to record it and transcribe it into a literary dialogue, most of the time a reader can't follow the transitions within the discussion. And when you see how many fake words people use--often to save less than a syllable's speech--it really does make the fact that humans get along at all that much more appreciable.

But how do you feel, inasmuch as you don't like "Y'all," about--

• 'Sup (What's up?)
• Aid'no (I dont' know)
• Axe (ask)

--and other symptomatic enunciations of dynamic compression in language?

Beyond that, one of my peeves is when people consistently screw up non-American names. Understandably, there are some names English-speakers have difficulty with; nobody's perfect, so it's not about botching someone's name when you meet them. But I think of a guy who called or calls games for the New York Yankees. Look, whatever. If Jorge wants to be called George, that's fine; my partner used to know a Jorge/George--he likes "George," she said, but failed to mention that he tolerated it, and was happy to be accepted by his peers even if they refused to pronounce his name correctly. So yeah, even a baseball commentator can miss it. But the guy's name is Posada, not Posedo. In Seattle, a fan apparently got so outraged by a dialogue with the Mariners' organization that she actually sent them a tilde. Which sucks because even though they could never write Raul Ibañez's name correctly, they were happy to write "Ichiro" and "Kazuhiro Sasaki" in Japanese on the TV screen. After going through the I-buh-Nez vs. Ee-BAH-nyez battle with the team, she measured and cut several blue felt tildes and sent them to Raul Ibañez. Shortly thereafter, the Mariners started including the tilde on the screen, and a couple of announcers actually got it right. And how's that for racism? How many Japanese players in the Majors? How many from the Hispanic umbrella? And yet announcers would rush to nail "Ichiro" and "Sasaki" correctly. Suh-ZOO-kee finally became Soo-SOO-kee, which is closer to how I hear Japanese folks say it, and the announcers went with "Kazu" because they couldn't figure the difference between Kah-zoo-HEAR-oh and Kuh-ZOO-aroh.

Also, I'm aware that if I cross the pond to Her Majesty's lands, I'll go nuts. A friend of mine would come back from England and make a point of using British euphemism. It's not that he was incomprehensible, but that they're really stupid words. It looks stupid in an e-mail, and sounds ridiculous coming off his tongue.

Okay, I'll stop babbling.

But how do you feel, inasmuch as you don't like "Y'all," about--

• 'Sup (What's up?)
• Aid'no (I dont' know)
• Axe (ask)

--and other symptomatic enunciations of dynamic compression in language?


'Sup when used usually makes me want to rip out the speaker's vocal cords.

Aid'no I've rarely heard used but 'I dunno' usually has me squinting my eyes to slits, but I usually count to 10 and let it go.

Axe I've found has usually been something in the problem of pronounciation.


We all use compressed versions of certain words in all languages, but some expressions just rub me the wrong way. I don't know why. " 'Sup" for example has now become so common that it is now rare to hear anyone say 'what's up?'. All that is usually said instead now is 'Sup' or 'wassup', and each time it's said to me, I honestly wish that I could either rip out their vocal cords or make them write 'what's up?' 1000 times.

Beyond that, one of my peeves is when people consistently screw up non-American names.
I know what you mean. My first name is actually Marie-Claire. It's one of those names that has been in my family for generations and unfortunately for me, for my generation, I'm the one with the burden. However, I've found that I have to use my middle name as I've had so many people pronounce my name as 'Marie-Claa-rey'. How they can actually pronounce Claire as 'Claa-rey' is beyond me. Claire is a common name, but because it has the Marie as well and it's a French name, people just can't read it and pronounce it properly. At one stage I was telling people to just call me Marie, but that ended up as their seeing Marie as being Mary :confused: which are two totally different names and pronounced differently. So in the end I ended up just going by my middle name which is easily understood and pronounced.

My lastname can be spelled in 3 different ways and still sound the same, I ofcause have 1 of the lesser used ways, so when i tell someone my lastname, and they need to write it down for some use, I alwasy spell it for them.
It does not bother me much anymore as it has become a reflex thou.

I have often seen people from the "correct gramma or die" group complain about the use of it's/its and general placment of '.
But i dont see the problem, when reading chunkylover58 line: Its only problem is that it's broken. the outcome is the same to me with or without ', perhaps its because my writen english is so bad, and im there for more used to compensate for errors when reading, but that only lead me to belive that people with english as primary should be able to read over the errors, and understand the general msg far better.

Hell, my family name is made up. (My great-great-grandfather, I think, upon arriving in the area from ... well, at some point Norway, found there to be too many Petersens for his taste, so he made up a simple name, seven letters, that sounds English.)

To this day, nobody can spell it, and few can pronounce it. One of my father's friends for ... thirty years ... still can't manage to say it right.

So maybe I'm being too hard on people in general about non-American names, but I stand firm with the baseball announcers; they're paid to get it right.

Note: Hasn't "axe you a kestchin" become sort of a stylistic thing? Something people choose? I mean, there are parts of the country where I won't blink at the word, "fiddy" (fifty), but when people around me start saying it suddenly for no apparent reason aside from some actor or rapper saying it, well, where's that chalkboard ... (listen to this!)

On those occasions that H.P. Lovecraft resorted to necessary dialogue, he wrote in dialect. This is far different from his antiquarian bent, and was most likely motivated by his misanthropy. August Derleth, in a number of stories to this day pawned as Lovecraft stories, went sort of goofy with it. What's quite funny is that it often seems a foreign language, and then you realize that you're actually reading a very simple phrase.

I sometimes think about recording my partner at specific times of day, but it was mostly for the overall effect. I always figured that the transcript would be incomprehensible to read, even though our time together means I can generally understand her. (I do this by ignoring two out of three words on average.) However, I've never thought of doing it to see how many effed-up words she's using. Ye gawds.

But i dont see the problem, when reading chunkylover58 line: Its only problem is that it's broken. the outcome is the same to me with or without ', perhaps its because my writen english is so bad, and im there for more used to compensate for errors when reading, but that only lead me to belive that people with english as primary should be able to read over the errors, and understand the general msg far better.

That's along the lines of "If you know enough to correct me, then you understood me fine. What's the problem?" That's bull.

The problem is basic communication skills. I shouldn't have to decipher what someone is saying to me and "compensate for errors." If I misunderstand you because I'm ignorant, that is my problem. If I misunderstand you because of poor spelling, a dangling modifier, or just bad grammar in general, that is your problem.

If you were to write "Its only problem is that its broken" and read it correctly without first thinking you would have to compensate for an error, one would think that you had left out the rest of the sentence. " ... its broken______" What? What does it have that is broken? And why is its broken part a problem?

If you write "It's only problem...." That's saying, "It is only problem"....That's Tonto/Frankenstein/Caveman speak.

Petersen or Pedersen, 2 other very simular scandinavian names.

Note: Hasn't "axe you a kestchin" become sort of a stylistic thing? Something people choose? I mean, there are parts of the country where I won't blink at the word, "fiddy" (fifty), but when people around me start saying it suddenly for no apparent reason aside from some actor or rapper saying it, well, where's that chalkboard ... (listen to this!)
Oh finally, someone who understands!! Terms such as 'sup, wassup, yo!, dang, etc have always had the ability to make me want to hurt the speaker. Main reason is because such terms are copied from shows or songs. For example, one day in my first year of uni, I was walking to a tutorial and bumped into a classmate who was born in Australia from Italian parents. I ended up turning around and walking in the opposite direction when she greeted me with "yo! yo! baby girl... where you at". After staring at her with my mouth open in shock, I just turned around and walked the other way lest I hit her with my bag. She'd never once spoken that way before, but from that day, she spoke like she was an African American living in Harlem. On several occasions since that day, I have found myself walking away when she's come out with a comment or statement that had me gritting my teeth to the point of pain.

The last straw came when she called me 'sister' because she knew that I had a distant African ancestor and because I had curly hair and olive skin (what made this even more annoying was that she and I had the same colouring), so she took it upon herself to call me 'sister' since I was black and 'in da hood' and all... wherever this damned 'hood' was in Australia :rolleyes:. On this day she found me sitting in the library immersed in some old cases and she greeted me with "dayuummm sista, sose dis where you bin hidin at". I can't repeat what my reply was since such language would probably end up with my post being deleted. Suffice to say that she avoided me after that :). But this is my major gripe at all this, why is it that people think it is cool to behave like sheep? See something on TV and they instantly start sounding and dressing like the image. Honestly, it's mildly amusing when a 4 year old does it, but when adults partake in such behaviour, it's annoying!

To a large extend, it's the responsability of the person creating the messeages, to make it as correct as possible, with in his/hers best abillities. but if that person wants to talk or in this case post posts, they have to jump in with both feed hoping someone can understand them, for many this is a huge problem, as they fear people will make fun of them or they will not be understod/missunderstod.

It then becomes the other parts responsability to understand what they are tryings to say. in maintaining 2 way communications you cannot just say "learn to type/talk", because sometimes the other part(which could be youself) is trying there best to be understod, and the info they have could be of vital importances.


I understand the used of its/it's better now, perhaps i can even begin to use it correctly:).
I do how ever read its/it's as the same word and get the meaning from the rest of the sentance.
So when seeing something like "It's only problem...." i dont see "It is only problem..." but "Its only problem...", 'its' is just a word with "dual functions", the sentence reviels which function to use.

When i said "compensate for errors" i did not mean i had to studie the posts, its was meant as a natural part of reading, only being stopped be something that "breaks" the line or to much not understod proberly.

dang is good word, damn is better but some get angry when its used. there is also a word starting with f, i would like to use more, but dont because i dont know how "sencitety" the people im talking with are.

i have also use wazzup simple because it can be funny

edit
is this wrong use of its "some get angry when its used"?

edit
is this wrong use of its "some get angry when its used"?

Yep.Should be ".... when it's used." Think that you are really saying "it is" and you are contracting the two into one word. The apostrophe takes the place of the space and the i.

"Its" would be appropriate if you were to say, "Some get angry with its use." "Its" being possessive, like "yours" or "ours." No apostrophe. I think it confuses some people because normally you make a noun possessive by adding " 's" to the word. "Stacy's mom is hot."

This brings me to another issue that bugs the hell out of me ... OK, 2..... I just thought of another. Just because a word ends in S doesn't mean it needs and apostrpohe. :bugeye: Only in a contraction or in the above mentioned possessive form.

Also (outside of forum use, I know) - .50 cents is NOT 50 cents. It is *point 5 cents* - 1/2 of a cent. I can get 2 of them for a penny.
So, I see signs in the grocery store: "Banana's - .50 cents a pound". :bugeye::bugeye: I want to take two pounds up to the counter, give them a penny and go on my merry way, "Hey! Sign says....."

Hahaha, that would be fun to try.

I am guilty of a few of these things myself (its/it's) if I am typing too fast or just not paying enough damn attention. Feel free to correct me, I take no offence. (well, unless someone is intentionally trying of course)

And if y'all have the need to vomit, feel free. ;) (just kidding, Bells)

'sup y'all?

'sup y'all?

its just....dunno...wadaya think

...meh....

need more home defence and guns, send more guns.

Paradigm shift

Dicta

Dichotomy

Ad hominem

Ad nauseum

Ad, ad, ad



And about 9/10 of the kind of words one finds in a Tessie post.

Paradigm shift




I hate....using the word HATE here....that phrase

Chunks:
I hate....using the word HATE here....that phrase

Why? Its a lovely word- one is incredibly real when they hate with real passion. "Slightly upset" is counterproductive and flakey.


Edit: Flakey, not flaky. Damn keyboards.

No...I'm saying I hate the phrase "Paradigm shift." Emphasising the HATE. I'm saying that I am so passionately disenthralled with it that I will say HATE. That's all.

Political correctness.
You can guarantee when it gets used, (i know, tis more of a phrase.) someone is going to start getting all stereotypical or stupid or something. LIke if someone else starts using the words gun nuts.

lol, which I do not understand. Other abreviations too! And some every day words that are not used correctly to show that the one who has used it is a native american. lol !!!

I don't see way some people are turned off by mentioning logic fallacies like ad homs? I think some of you might not know what an ad hominem is and why it is important and a reasonable response to some posts. If some one makes an argument that is based on an ad hominem it is correct to point that out and thus dam s/hes argument as illogical carp.

review people:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

I don't like the word "neep" it just pisses me off for some reason. :D

Right. More clearly, ad hom attacks are not like, as some mistake them to be:

A. "This is what's correct"
B. "Well, you're a big fat idiot."

More along the lines of:

"I have no reason to respect your opinion on the war in Iraq because you are merely an auto mechanic."

CookedFetus:
I don't see way some people are turned off by mentioning logic fallacies like ad homs?
And I don't see how you can sit there, suffer a schoolbus load of kiddies that just learned that term off the internet to whore it all over forums such as this one in trying to sound intelligent, and then fucking come here and post someting about you not understanding why 'some people are turned off by mentioning logic(al) fallcies like ad homs"

Unless of course you're too busy whoring the poor thing yourself in trying to sound intellegent that you haven't picked up on how stupid you look.
I think some of you might not know what an ad hominem is and why it is important and a reasonable response to some posts.

Negetive.

I understand all the 'ads' in the dictionary and will put up with them if my...opponent.......shows he understands both my platform and his. But to hear a complete schmuck resort to dribble about ad hominem in lieu of dissecting what the fuck I just said deserves a punch in the nose and a kick in the groin.

If some one makes an argument that is based on an ad hominem it is correct to point that out and thus dam s/hes argument as illogical carp.

Carp, crap. Same difference.

Chunky:
I have no reason to respect your opinion on the war in Iraq because you are merely an auto mechanic
And if gendanken was the smartest seamstress on the globe, tells you why Saddam is an asshole and Bush a bigger one........you scrambling like a rat and attacking my being only a semstress instead of proving your own point by dissecting mine is not churlish namecalling, how exactly?

How is this NOT "B. "Well, you're a big fat idiot.", exactly?

Its the cheapest way out of a challenge people.

gendanken,

I'm going to ignore your ad Hominem abusive.

It does not matter what or why I mention ad hominems. What matters is if it is valid to point it out or not, so all that crap you said about me is as illogical carp or as you say just carp. :)

also chunkylover58 note the "abusive" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)

Chunky:

And if gendanken was the smartest seamstress on the globe, tells you why Saddam is an asshole and Bush a bigger one........you scrambling like a rat and attacking my being only a semstress instead of proving your own point by dissecting mine is not churlish namecalling, how exactly?

How is this NOT "B. "Well, you're a big fat idiot.", exactly?

Its the cheapest way out of a challenge people.


Tell me how my stating a general definition of "ad hom" in any way, shape or form indicates my defending the practice.....

All I did was make clarification of the real meaning for those who toss it around without knowing what it really means.

Also people can make "implied" logic fallacies were they don't really state a complete argument (or even a complete sentance in some cases) but are implying a argument. For example If I were to state something and someone else was to say "Well, you're a big fat idiot." it can be implied that that other person means I'm wrong because I'm "a big fat idiot" thus its a implied ad hom... but perhaps gendanken is right and we should just call that blatent insulting.

also chunkylover58 note the "abusive" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)

This is the basis for my statement....


Ad hominem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the man"), is a fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion. .....

Properly understood, it consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong because of something about the person rather than about the argument. Thus, for example, merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute ad hominem, as this term has usually been taught

This is not nuclear science people.

Fetus says " I don't see (why) some people are turned off by mentioning logic fallacies like ad homs"

And Gendanken relates to him why some people, like herself, does. She never once 'abused' the man.

I dissected why it was the trend was a gimmick and then implied that the Fetus may be guilty of the same thing. So?
My point was rooted in a general history of observation- not the Fetus.

(God we're dorks)(Anyway)

but perhaps gendanken is right and we should just call that blatent insulting
Caching!

Point out the sly ~implications~ in "You're a big fat fucking idiot" and I'll concede.

Chucky:
Thus, for example, merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute ad hominem, as this term has usually been taught
Now do you see why your little Iraqi war example looks stupid?

No....Saying "Your input doesn't matter because your vocation/race/religion/etc. obviously precludes you from having any sort of informed basis for it" is ad hom. This is the example provided by the auto mechanic statement. Saying, "You're a big fat idiot," irrespective of the details of the argument, is simply a personal attack.

Chuncky:
No....Saying "Your input doesn't matter because your vocation/race/religion/etc. obviously precludes you from having any sort of informed basis for it" is ad hom.
And you've somehow overlooked that saying

"Your input doesn't matter because your vocation/race/religion/etc. obviously precludes you from having any sort of informed basis for it"

Is eugenic for


"You're big fat idiot. Waste of time and ta ta"


No?

Nope. What I'm saying is that an out-of-hand dismissal of another person's opinion based solely on their vocation/race/religion/etc. is different from making a personal attack.

"You manage a Burger King, so you can't possibly know anything about this subject."
Is very different from, "You're a bitch."

In the "You're a bitch" scenario, the person's background, education and cognitive ability to make an informed statement are not in question. It is simply an insult.

Either way, neither type of attack, whether you define either or both as "ad hom" is appropriate within any debate.

how about the word 'spuriousmonkey'!

BARFFF...

Oh please spuriousmonkey if anyone has a vile name its me! :D

Political correctness = A tool to manipulate people into doing anything the government desires.

WCF now you bring it up, do you ever get any funky PM regarding your name

Kunax,

I have been banned from forums because of this name. Thought about changing it many times, even did for a while but this name is sooooo me, I love my name :)

ummmmm, i wonder why you were banned..... :D

its a good unique name, with the added bonus of tickin somepeople off :)

I really hate it when someone says about himself or herself "I am definitely never going to /.../"
Or when they call someone "my /insert ethnical, religious and other such specification/ friend" (like "my black friend" or "my European friend"). :mad:

MUSLIM

it is coming out of my nose like snot during a cold.

It is getting fucking annoying that these self-centered people keep spewing their muslim propaganda on this forum. Who gives a shit about your religion! News flash - GOD IS DEAD.

The same is valid for our christian friends.

It is getting fucking annoying that these self-centered people keep spewing their muslim propaganda on this forum. Who gives a shit about your religion! News flash - GOD IS DEAD.

The same is valid for our christian friends.

Amen!!! spuriousmonkey, very well spoken