Why Draqon needed banning. Poll

Just keep posting the ad hominems and we will pretend not to notice.

Why was that wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Incorrect, on both points.
I see your mis-comprehension runs deep.
Try the link, or, as suggested earlier, do a little research before you start tossing out accusations.

Sad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, assuming you're intelligent...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And wrong again.

Did you even bother to look at the link Glaucon provided?
Have you actually bothered checking to see the definition of ad hominem? Or are you simply going with your incorrect interpretation?

An ad hom is an attack on the person in an effort to invalidate his argument.
An insult is nothing to do with the argument.

This is not ad hominem: Greg, you're a moron if you think evolution is wrong.
Is a claim that someone is a moron because their thinking is wrong.

This is ad hominem: Greg, your incorrect support of creationism stems from the fact that you're too stupid to understand evolution.
Is an ad hom because it's using the insult in an attempt to invalidate their argument.

Try Wiki, it may be simpler for you to read.

 

and you are giving the same examples that do not refer to the original statement.

what does this:

This is not ad hominem: Greg, you're a moron if you think evolution is wrong.
Is a claim that someone is a moron because their thinking is wrong.

This is ad hominem: Greg, your incorrect support of creationism stems from the fact that you're too stupid to understand evolution.
Is an ad hom because it's using the insult in an attempt to invalidate their argument.

Have to do with this:

That is just a sneaky ad hominem.

 

Another ad hominem.

 

Another incorrect post from you.

 

Why is that incorrect?

 

If i pour some perfume on cockie it is still cockie.

 

The examples are, uh, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, they're examples.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I explained WHY the ad hom was an ad hom and the non-ad hom was a non-ad hom.
In the, obviously futile, hope that you would, at some point, understand exactly what an ad hom is and stop referring to any and all insults (perceived or real) as an ad hom.

 

Not if the examples are different from what the original point of contention is.

So you admit they are insults?

 

The examples were used to illustrate what an ad hom actually is. Your misunderstanding of the term is irrelevant to the current point of contention, it appears to be fundamental.

I see you don't actually read the bits of people's posts that you don't want to.

 

Let us review:

Example one:
Well, assuming you're intelligent, then you're left with two options:

Example Two:
Try Wiki, it may be simpler for you to read.

I added the emphasis to show why these are examples of ad hominems.

 

I noticed the linguistics mod is on line. Perhaps he can look at this but of course he wont go against you two and will devise some clever explanation.